ML19347E592
| ML19347E592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | Blake N, Feder P, Hillman R Battelle Memorial Institute, COLUMBUS LABORATORIES |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105130086 | |
| Download: ML19347E592 (185) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- . . ANNUAL REPORT FD For the Period December 1, 1979, to November 30, 1980 L:- . on E-E STUDY OF WOODBORER POPULATIONS IN RELATION TO THE OYSTER CREER GENERATING STATION to ~ JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY February 27, 1981 by u N. Maciolek Blake, R.E. Ilillman, P.I. Feder and C.I. Belmore Report No. 15040
.. Battette is not engaged in research for advertising, sales promotion,
~ or publicity purposes, and this report may not be reproduced in fuit or in
.part for such purposes.
gjo Tis c 08G
l L e L L TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY
............................................... i 1NTRODUcT10N..................................................... 1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................... 3 Patterns of Species Abundance............................... 3 Species Distribution........................................ 12 c0NctUSIONS........................................-............. t3 LITERATURE C1TED................................................. 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Numbers of Teredinids on Long-term Panels Submerged June, 1979, through May, 1980, and Removed Sequen-tially December, 1979, through November, 1980......... 4 Table 2. Numbers of Teredinids on Short-term Panels Removed Monthly December, 1979, through November, 1980........ 5 [ Table 3. Abundance, Infection Rate and Ratio of Abundance in One Season to Abundance in Previous Season (At +1/At ) of Teredo navalis Infected by Minchinis ap. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Outline of Barnegat Bay Showing Geographical Locations of Exposure Panels.......................... 2 Fi;ure 2. Relationship of Percent Infection of Teredo navalis by Minchinia sp. to Ratio of Abundance in One Year to Abundance in Previous Year of T. navalic.......... 11 APPENDIX A E XP O SU RE P AN E L S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 1 APPENDIX B BO RER DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
[ E TABLE OF CONTENTS y (Continued) L Page - { APPENDIX C j WATER QUALITY.................................................... C-l' F L-E E E E E E E E E E E r e L. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _
i l i h MANACDIENT
SUMMARY
.The study conducted by Battelle's New England Marine Research Laboratory of the populations of woodboring molluscs in Barnegat Bay, h New Jersey, began-in June, 1975, at the request of the Jersey Central
' Power & Light Company, which operates the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
{, Station. This report covers the period from December 1, 1979, through November 30, 1980, and iacludes a discussion of the patterns of distribu-
-tion, abundance and reproductive activity observed since the beginning
.of the program.
As in the past three report periods, only three species of molluscan woodborers, the teredinids Bankia gouldi, Teredo navalis and-T. bartschi were identified from either short-cerm or long-term panels. Abundance levels of all species were much lower at all stations during the last breeding season beginning July, 1980, than in the previous season h (July,1979 - April,1980). A fourth species, T. furcifera, which was of concern during the first years of the program, has not been identified from any panel since February, 1977. The crustacean woodborer, Limnoria tripunctata, was again recorded at five stations. The distribution c ~ Terado bartschi is limited primarily to staticas within Oyster Creek, where water temperatures are elevated when the OCNGS is in operation. Last year this species was also found at one-station outside Oyster Creek, and this year we have found this species at two additional stations outside the discharge canal area. These three stations are all to the north of Oyster Creek, in an area which at times receives recirculated warm water effluent. The distribution of T. bartschi appears to be limited to stations potentially impacted by the thermal efflu-ent discharged during operation of the OCNGS. Histological examination of ( gonads and the presence of small (-1-10 mm) individuals on long-term panels collected in the winter months of. January through March suggest that T. bartschi may be reproductively active during most months of the year. -During this past report period, the OCNGS was not in operation from early January to E
i I I t mid-July, and water temperatures in Oyster Creek were similar to those ( throughout the bay. The continued presence o f T. bartschi, although in reduced numbers, suggests that this semitropical epecies is able to with-l stand ambient temperature levels in Barnegat Bay, perhaps through selec-tion of cold-hardy individuals over the past several years. Thus, it would appear that the impact of the OCNCS has been in allowing T. bartschi to become established in Oyster Creek, and in aiding its spread W to Forked River through recirculated effluent. However, it may not be f af fecting the reproductive period or gametogenesis in T. bartschi directly, although sufficient comparative data on this aspect of T. bartschi's I biology is lacking. Teredo navalis was again the dominant species on the east side f of Barnegat Bay, particularly at stations near the inlet to the bay. It was also found at several stations on the west side of the bay as in pre-l vious years. Histological analysis of gonads indicated ripening and spawning by this species during the winter months of January, February, and March at stations well beyond the influence of the OCNGS. This would suggest that the normal spawning period for T. navalis may be earlier than previously thought. Statistical analysis of presence / absence and abundance data indicated that stations within the area potentially impacted by the OCNGS thermal discharge did not differ significantly from most otations I well beyond the influence of the power plant. Bankia gouldi was agairi widespread at stations on the west side of Barnegat Bay, particularly in the northern portion of the bay. Histo-logical analysis of gonads did not indicate any advanced reproductive activity during the winter months of January through March. Most of the specimens with late active gonads were found in May and September while l ripe and partially spawned gonads were found primarily in June and July. Statistical analysis of presence / absence and abundance data indicated i that stations which were significantly different for B. gouldi were those I in the northern part of the bay, well beyond the potential influence of the OCNGS. ii l i
L It is not possible to determine whether OCNGS has affected the [ breeding seasons of Terado navalis and Bankia gouldi in those areas directly impacted by the thermal effluent because those species do not ( occur there in sufficient numbers. There is no evidence from either the settling or histological data that the breeding season of these species has been affected anywhere else in the Bay. As in previous years, the occurrence of the crustacean wood-borer Limnoria tripunctata was limited to the station at Barnegat Inlet and four stations to the south of Oyster Creek. At two of these stations the level of attack was similar to that reported in previous years, but at three cf the stations the level of attack was 3 t - 5 times higher than that reported previously. No Timnoria were reported from any of the creosoted panels. It can be concluded, therefore, that the operation of the OCNGS
~
has not affected the populations of Teredo navalis, Bankia gouldi or Limnoria tripunctata, in that there is no enhancement of the numbers of ( these species within the area potentially impacted by the thermal effluent over'that fou.4 to occur at stations beyond the influence of the power plant. However, the distribution of T. hartschi is distinctive. Its { absence from stations beyond the potential influence of the thermal dis-charge, as well as its continued presence in Oyster Creek, suggests that its distribution in Barnegat Bay may be correlated with the operations of the OCNGS. [ [ [ <<< [ [ r
l I l 1 i STUDY OF WOODBORER POPULATIONS IN RELATION TO illE OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION il 67 N. Maciolek Blake, R.E. Ilillman, P.I. Feder and C.I. Belmore INTRODUCTTON The study conde ted by Batte11e's New England Marine Research I Laboratory of the populations of woodboring molluscs In Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, began in June, 1975 at the request of the Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCPL), which operates the Oyster Creek Nucicar Generating Station (OCNGS). The OCNGS has used salt water from Barnegat Bay as cooling water for its reactor since the plant began operating in December, 1969. The thermal effluent from the plant enters Oyster Creek approximately two miles inland from Barnegat Bay (Figure 1). Oyster Creek flows into the bay about one mile south of Forked River, which provides water to the intake of the plant's cooling system. Recirculation of water from the Oyster Creek discharge canal into Forked River has been calculated to occur between 4 and 22% of the time (Kennish, JCPL, personal communication), with some of the effluent also flowing south towards Waretown. The mor-phology and flow direction of the thermal plume is variable, being depen-dent on wind and tide but primarily on wind. Consequently, organisms in Oyster Creek and contiguous waters exposed, at times, to temperatures above ambient bay levels. A heavy outbreak of woodboring molluscs in the Oyster Creek area in the early 1970's raised concerns about the possible effeet of the operation of the OCNGS on populations of shipworms in Oyster Creek and in the Barnegat Bay system. This study has been conducteo in an ef fort to determine whethet- the operation of the OCNGS is indeed having an impact on the distribution, abundance, and/or reproductive patterns of any of the several species of woodborers found in the L.y. I
2 MA::AstrAN BRIELLE / l 4asas POINT
^
INTRACOASTAL s WATERVAY CANAL. A MANTOLOKIL 15 K 7 ' LE CREEK
)
5 SEASIDE
,@ ATLANTIC OCF.A'i SLOOP CRELK 110LI.Y PARK ~
gf*t s 12 STOUTS CREEK SEDGE I II IS tr to f ! O OYSTER REEK OYSTER CREEK l 6 i BARNEGAT INLET NUCLEAR GENERATIN(; STATION ab [ .g WARETOWN I CITY HARNECAT BEACil ~
$ PANEL ARRAY ISLAND h' 0 1, 2 ) MILES ,
( BARNEGAT INLET, NEW .1ERSEY , i Latitude 39' 45.8 N 2 Longitude 74* 06.0 W , x 2 E
- ; \
O g [' T FIGURE 1. - OUTLINE OF BARNEGAT BAY S110 WING GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF
. EXPOSURE PANELS
( 3 During the present report period, December 1,1979 through November 30, 1980, three integrated tasks were conducted in a continua-tion of the study begun in 1975. These tasks included: 1) identifica-( tion and enumeration of the woodboring molluscs which settled on wooden panels exposed at 20 study sites for 1-month or 6-month periods, 2) histological examination of representative specimens from these panels { to determine the stage of gonadal development and presence or absence of pathological conditions, and 3) determination of the temperature, salinity, pH and dissolved oxygen at each station at the time the panels were re-mc,ved from exposure. The materials and methods used for each of these tasks and for the statistical analyses of the resultant data set are precented in detail in Appendices A, B, and. C, which follow this section. ( With the exception of the statistical analyses, the methods used have been consistent throughout the program. Details of the program for each year can be found in Richards et al. (1976, 1978, 1979, 1980). { RESULTS AND DISCUSSION As in the past three report periods, only three species of molluscan woodborers, the teredinids Bankia gouldi, Teredo navalis, and T. bartschi were identified from either short-term (one-month) or long-term (6-munth) panels. The crustacean woodborer Limnoria tripunctaba was again recorded at several stations. Patterns of Species Abundance [ Summarized results from the long-term panels are given in Table 1. Results from the first third of the report period, December, 1979 through March, 1980, reflect the high teredinid abundances reported for the summer and fall of 1979 (Richards et al., 1980). Total abundance, irrespective of species, was high at Station 1 at Barnegat Inlet, Station 5, 6, and 7 in Oyster Creek, and Station 11 at the mouth of Forked River. ( Stations 2, 10A, 12, 13, and 14 showed levels intermediate between these stations and all other study sites. ( No teredinids were reported from short-term panels (Table 2) during this period (December - March) as has been the case in previous [
TABLE 1. NUMBERS OF TEREDINIDS IN LONG-TERM PANELS SUBMERGED JUNE,1979 TIIROUGil MAY,1980 AND REMOVED SEQUENTIALLY DECEMBER, 1979 TilROUGil NOVEMBER, 1980 Submerged Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Site Removed Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total # % Total 1 400 400 500 54 5 43 200 300 1902 24.57 2 23 15 13 6 7 12 13 89 1.15 3 2 5 7 .09 4 6 3 5 2 16 .21 4A 5 6 3 14 .18 5 400 393 450 285 4 4 2 1538 19.87 6 290 84 150 278 1 803 10.37 l l 7 400 405 500 310 1 2 2 11 58 1689 21.82 8 3 2 2 1 8 .10 9 3 1 2 1 3 10 .13 i 10 3 1 4 .05 10A 70 53 97 59 7 13 17 8 329 4.25 l 10B 9 5 4 1 2 1 22 .28 11 400 284 140 6 31 33 61 45 1000 12.92 1.23 12 21 29 2 2 20 10 11 95 1 13 57 12 2 3 74 .96 14 64 14 11 1 1 2 93 1.20 15 2 11 1 2 1 4 21 .27 16 * ] ! 17 3 7 4 1 2 9 ?5 .34 !
- No panel removed.
l 1
s u r 5 L-TABLE 2. NUMBERS OF TEREDINIDS IN S110RT-TERM PANELS { REMOVED MONTIILY DECD1BER,1979 TilROUGli ' NOVDiBER , 1980* - [ - Site Aug Sep Oct Nov Total # T T 39 T 47 T 88 ' 1 1 i 2 3 4 4A [ 5 3Bg,T 1gB 4 6 1 B8 1aT 2 7 1T iT 3T stb,T 10 { 8 10 B 1g 10A i 10B IT 1 11 4Bg,T 3Bg,T T 7 14 [ 12 18 3 3 BB 4 13 14 1 BS iT 2 { T 15 I 1 16 17 Short-term panels removed December, 1979 through July, 1980 were free of Teredinidae. Bc - Bankia goutdi Tb - Terado bartschi Ts - Terado spp. T - Teredinidae
6 years. This would indicate that no settlement of juveniles took place [ after October. However, the histologic 11 examination of gonads provided evidence of reproductive activity at several stations during this time. ( Specimens of Terado navalic with ripe gonads were found at Stations 9 and 15 in January, 1980, and at Stations 2 and 17 in April (Appendix B, Table B-1). These stations are all outside the potential influence of the thermal effluent. At Station 10A, specimens of T. bartschi with partially spawned gonads were found in Jan w y, and individuals with [ late active or ripe gonads were found in February. Partially spawned gonads were also found in T. barcachi from Stations 5 and 6 in January and ripe gonads in one specimen from Station 10B in January (Appendix B, Table B-1). These stations are either in Oyster Creek (Stations 5 { and 6) or in an area to the north of Oyster Creek which may receive some recirculated effluent (Stations 10A an.1 10B). Specimens of Bankia gouldi with spent gonads were found at Stations 10B, 11, 13, and 15 in January, but none were found with ripe or spawned gonads in February. Although short-term panels were free of teredinids from December through R1rch, long-term panels removed from Stations 1, 5, 6, 7, and 10A during these months contained very small (<l-10 mm) individ-uals as well as very large (100-300 mm) specimens (Appcadix A, Tables A-9 through A-12). The small individuals may represent either newly settled young r individuals which settled prior to December 1 and failed to grow. Nne of the specimens found in panels removed in March ( from Stations 5, 6, , and 10A were alive when the panel was examined. Similar results have been reported for these stations in pre-vious report periods (Richards et al., 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980). The histological evidence along with the size range of the specimens suggests l { the possibility that teredinids at Station 1 (Barnegat Inlet) and Oyster Creek Stations 5, 6, and 7 are reproducing during the early winter-months of January and February. Hoagland and Turner (1980) report finding T. bartschi with brooding young throughout the year in 1978 and 1979 at their stations in Oyster Creek, as well as at a station between Oyster Creek and Forked River. They also found specimens 1-2 mm long in long-terms pancis retrieved January - March, 1979 from the same stations.
( 7 Station 1 ac Barnegat Inlet is well beyond any influence of the OCNGS. Terado navalis is dominant at this statf.on, as well as at ( Stations 2 and 17. The early ripening and spawning by T. navalis in areas not affected by the thermal, plume has been observed throughout the study (Richards et al., 1976, 1978, 1979, 1960) and is not considered to be related to operation of the OCNGS. It is reasonable to conclude that the normal spawning period for T. navalis may be earlier than pre-viously thought. Teredo bartschi is the dominant teredinid at Oyster Creek stations. Prior to being found in New Jersey in 1974, the northern ( breeding limit for this species in the western Atlantic was considered to be Florida (Turner, 1966; Hoagland and Turner, 1980). It is possible that this species was introduced into Barnegat Bay via the hull of a wooden ship and has found a refuge in Oyster Creek. T. bartschi has also been reported from Waterford, Connecticut, where it has been re-corded since 1975 in the effluent canai of the Millstone Nuclear Power f Station operated by Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO, 1981). l At that site, it is reported to be common (i.e., an average of 75 I individuals per panel) only in February. ( Monthly data collected over the last five years indicates that due to the discharge from the OCNGS, temperatures at stations in Oyster Creek are, on the average, elevated 3 to 6*C above ambient bay temperatures. However, the plant has been shut down at various times, ( including the period January to mid-July,1980, during which time Oyster Creek water temperatures were similr.r to those throughout the bay. Re- { sults discussed below indicate that T. bartschi is able to survive these periods of ambient temperatures, although in very reduced numbers. This species has been reported only from Stations 5, 6, and 7 in Oyster Creek and Stations 10A,10B, and 11 just to the north of Oyster Creek (Appe'a;x A, Table A-18). Hoagland and Turner (1980) also report the species from Waretown, which is to the south of the discharge canal, and may be influ-enced by the thermal effluent (JCPL 316(a) demonstration). The absence ( of T. bartschi from stations well beyond the potential influence of the thermal discharge, as well as its continued presence in Oyster Creek,
[ { suggests that its (istribution sn Barnegat Bay may be cerrelated with f the operations of the OCNGS. Results of both long-term panels (Table 1) and short-term f panels (Table 2) indicate a delayed breeding season throughout the bay in 1980. In previous years, teredinid spawning apparently has begun in ( June, with newly-settled individuals present on panels pulled early in July (see, for example, Richards et al., 1980). This year, no settlement
~
was seen on short-term pancis until August (Table 2), indicating that spawning did not begin until July. Ilowever, histological examination of the gonads of teredinids obtained in May and June revealed partially-spawned or spent gonads in individuals from several stations, for example, Terado navalis from Station 1 (Appentix B, Table B-1) and Bankia gouldi f from Station 12 (Appendix B, Table B-1). These results suggest that counts of individuals from the one-month exposure panels underestimate ( the onset of reproductive activity of the teredinide. An alternative explanatioa is that spawning did take place in May and June but the larvae did not survive due to stressful environmental conditions or l high levels of predatio... The abundance of woodborers in panels removed during the { months of August through November, 1980 was very low throughout tne bay (Tables 1 and 2). Teredinids were found at 16 of the 20 study l sites, but with the exception of Station 1, abondances were an order of magnitude lower than thosa reported during the last report period (Richards et al., 1980). T: re: son for this decline is not fully understood. The shutdown of the OCNGS during the winter months of ( January - March,1980 may have contributed to the decline of the population of T. bartschi at Oyster Creek stations. Ilowever, a de-cline in all species was also recorded from stations well beyond the { influence of the power plant. ( In the past two reports (Richards et al., 1979 and 1980), considerable attention has been paid to the incidence of parasites ir e borers and, because of the often extensive tissue damage, to the ,,ossible effect on borer abundance and distribution in Barnegat Bay. [
+ . I L ~ 9 L The principal parasites affecting the borers are a species of the pro-L tozoan genus Minchinia, which has been found in all species of Tdredo collected from Barnegat Bay, and a ciliated protozoan Boveria tcredinidi, which is not normally parasitic but which has been shown to infect a sub-stantial number of Bankia gouldi. During this report period, infections of Tdrado navalia by Minchinia sp. occurred at four stations in addition to those reported last year. The rate of infection also increased considerably (see Appendix B Table B-2). Although the numbers of Teredo bartschi collected over this report period declined, the overall rate of infection,by Minchinia sp. increased (Appendix B, Table B-3). Because too few T. bartschi were collected during this period, little can be said regarding trends in infection; however, the fact that all five specimens collected at Ctation u 7 vere infected as compared to none of the 118 collected last year might indicate a forthcoming increase in infection rates. In order to determine whether the parasite might have an effect on Tdrado navalis populations, the yearly abundances at the
, stations from which more than 10 specimens were collected in any one season, whether in regular panels or in special panels for gonad and disease studies (see Appendix B), were examined in relation to the
{ rate of infection by Minchinia sp. at those same stations. Table 3
~
shows the total abundance of T. navalis during each season (from April of one year through Fbrch of the next) (Appendix A, Table A-19), the infection rate (Appendix B, Table B-3), and the ratio of the abundance I in one season to the abundance in the previous season. When the in- _ . fection rate in collections of over 10 specimens either in the regular _ panels or in special panels is plotted against the abundance ratio u (Figure 2), it can be seen that at infection rates of about 40 percent or higher there is a sharp drop in the abundance ratio. When a regression analysis was performed there was a significant inverse correlation E' (r = -0.4325; N = 16; .95 < p < .975) between infection rate and abun-L- dance ratio. papessH
-- -~ - . . . . . . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - _ - - _ __ _ _ _ - __. . - . - - - - _ _ - - . - . - . _ , _ . - - . ___ _ _-.
L I L r 10 L TABLE 3. APUNDANCE. INFECTION RATE AND RATIO OF ABUNDANCE IN ONE 0F SEASON Tcreda TO INFECTED natulis ABUNDANCE ETIN PREVIOUS Miruhir:ia sp. SEASON (A +1[^t) t Infection Percent y Station Season Abundance Rate infected
- At+1/A g 75-76 480 0/4 0 4.56
{ L 76-77 2191 13/44 29.5 1 77-78 2225 8/70 11.4 78-79 2105 0.95 30/78 38.5 1.01 { L_, 79--80 2119 35/71 49.3 75-76 25 3/6 50 76-77 0.16 4 0/0 0 2 '7-78 4 1.00 i 0/3 0 78-79 21 5.25 2/22 9.1 79-80 109 5.19 88/147 59.7 1 75-76 0 0/0 0 76-77 6 3/3 100 7 77-78 0 0 0/0 0 ; 73-79 2 0/26 0 l 79-80 1 0/2 0 i 75-76 259 1/2 50 n 76-77 84 13/31 41.9 11 77-73 10 4/4 100 78-79 1.30 I 13 0/6 0 79-80 529 1/51 40.69 2.0 75-76 '4 0/1 0 76-77 0 a 0/0 0 , 12 77-78 0 1.00 0/0 0 78-79 0 1.00 0/0 0 79-80 3 0/12 0
~
I 14 75-76 76-77 77-78 0 0 2 0/0 0/0 0/2 0 0 0 78-79 0 0/0 0 79-80 31 0/14 0 75-76 18 0/12 0 76-77 2 0/2 0 15 77-78 2 0/0 0 78-79 1 - 0/2 0 I 79-80 14 14.00 0/14 0 ! 75-76 313 14/19 73.7 76-77 53 0.17 10/16 62.5 17 77-78 0.09 5 7/8 87.5 78-79 1.00 5 7/16 43.7 79-80 22 34/46 73.9
p 11 I .tli LL (,5 12-ll-f. 4 10-9- _ 8- 4 L . 7- *
$ 6-c .O f) ,
[. t;_ O [ -> l [ 2- [' 1- o O O O O 0 0
- A
[i 10 20 30 40 . 50 60
'70 80 90
. .T 100 Percent Infection FIGURE 2. RELATIONSIIIP OF PERCE?rr INFECTION OF Teredo navalis
~
BY Ninahinia sp. TO RATIO OF ABUNDANCE IN ONE YEAR TO ABUNDANCE IN PREVIOUS YEAR OF T. navalis
~
[ [
-1 ha eimi i .
b c L r 12 The frequency of occurrence of cysts of Boveria tunedinidi ib La Bankia gouldi has increased since 1979 (Appendix B, Figure B-3). No Clear relationship exists, however, between encystnent and population abundance, and it is still not known what factors allow penetration of the ciliate into the shipworms' tissues, or whether these factors might [' also affect the abundance and distribution of B. gouldi. L. Species Distribution r' L, Even with lower abundances, the distribution of species of tere-dinids in the bay remained similar to that reported previously (Appendix Teredo navalis is dominant primarily on ( A, Tables A-18 through A-20). the eastern side of the bay at Stations 1 and 17, and on the western side
~
of the bay at Stations 2 and 11. It was codominant with Bankia gouldi at Stations 9 and 15. Bankia gouZdi is generally dominant at stations
- in the northwestern portion of the bay, specifically, Stations 12,13, L- and 14. Teredo bartschi is dominant at Oyster Creek stations, and the report or individuals from Stations 10A,10B, and 11 indicates that"it F~
L_ may be spreading from Oyster Creek. Statistical analyses of the data have helped to quantify con-b_ clusions reached by inspection of the raw data. Analysis of variance calculations were carried out on presence / absence results and on logc ' (1 + abundance) for Teredo navalis (Appendix A, Tables A-22 and A-23) and Bankia gouldi (Appendix A, Tables A-24 and A-25). No analyses were E~ carried out on T. bartschi data because of the distinct and limited L distribution of the species. For T. navalis and B. gouldi, the three r- main effects of station, month and year were highly significant, with station effects generally the strongest. That is, the average abun-dances of each species were significantly different between stations, i, between months and between years. Multiple comparison procedures, in-cluding calculation of the Bonferroni t-statistic and Student-Newman- ~ Keuls multiple range test indicated that the differences between months could be related to an increase in numbers over the breeding season and
~~
a decline in the winter. Station differences reflected the dominance patterns mentioned earlier for both species, with those stations at m _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ . _ . . _ _
f~ L which either Taredo navalis or Bankia gouldi dominate appearing unique. In the case of both species, stations in Oyster Creek were not signifi-cantly different from the majority of stations in Barnegat Bay. In can
~
therefore be concluded that the operation of the OCNGS is not ~ffecting the populations of these two species, in the sense that there is no enhancement of either species within the area potentially impacted by the thermal plume. As in previous years, the occurrence of Limnoria tripunctata has been limited to station 1, Barnegat Inlet, and Stations 2, 3, 4, and 4A, all of which are south of Oyster Creek (Appendix A, Table A-30) . At Stations 3 and 4, the level of attack as measured by the average number of tunnels was similar in this report period to that recorded in previous years. However, at Stations 1, 2, and 4A, the mean annual number of tur.aels was 3 to 5 times higher than that recorded in previous years, with the heaviest attack reported from Station 4A. No Limnoria were reported from any of the creosoted panels. l I CONCLUSIONS The following maior conclusions were reached on the basis of data collected since July,1975: j 1) The distribution of *orado bcrbscht in Barnegat Bay is limited primarily co stations within Oyster Creek, 4 where water temperatures are elevated an average of 3*- 6*C over ambient when the OCNGS is in operation. The species is also found at stations in the Forked River which receive recirculated warm-water effluent.
- 2) The distribution and abundance of Tercdo navalis and i
Ba nkia gouldi are not enhanced by the cperation of the OCNGS. T. navalis is a minor component of the woodboring fauna in Oyster Creek, and is less abun-dant at those stations than it is at stations well beyond the influence of the OCNGS. The highest Pier WC 68 Lat. 39' 47.l'N f, State Park Long. 74* 05.9'W (Sedge Island) All exposure panel racks suspended in a minimum water depth at Incan low water of at least three feet. Racks hung with nylon line from existing structures so the bottom panels are close to, but not touching the bottom. Racks at Forked River railroad bridge and Oyster Creek railroad bridge suspended with wire rope. WC = Woodward-Clyde WFCL = William F. Clapp Laboratories
- Site 4-A installed April, 1977 Sites 10 A, 10 B installed April, 1978.
A-6 [ [ [ [ , , J 0 W l u u O o c /$ ee ao & _y,5 o o b'f p.
*a e
- a o W W U U
[ 1 2 3 C 4 5 6 [ ** = ** = *o ao - oo ao ao [ [ FIGURE A-2. EXPOSURE PANEL ARRAY E l r L r- [
A-7 C ahci'ar panels which have received a 20-pound treatment of marine-grade ( creosote. Panels labeled 1-6 are exposed for six months and are referred to as "long-term panels" or "P". The panel exposed for 1 month is called tha "short-term pancl" and is labeled "C". In addition, two "special panels" { are mounted on each rack. These "special panels" are exposed for 12 months, and are removed and replaced in Mey and June of each year. These panels provide specimens for histological analysis of the gonads and are dis-cussed in detail in Appendix B. [ Panels are seasoned for two weeks in seawater passed through a Steroline Aquafine Flectronic L.' quid Sterilizer (Model PVC 6) before being placed on the array. During the t.'rst week of each month, one long-term and one short-term panel are removed from each array and replaced with a ( new seasoned panel. Creosoted pancis are not removed, but are cleared of fouling ceganisms and inspected in situ for evidence of attack by Limnoria ';ripunctata. Upon removal, each panel is wrapped in newspaper dampened with { seawater and placed in an ice-filled cooler. At the laboratory, panels are refrigerated until they are .=xamined. Examination of each panel includes detennination of the species, numbers, and size of the borers (Teredinidae and Limnoria) present, and the ~ extent of destruction of the panel (Table A-2, Figures A-3 and A-4). Notations of sexual conditions and presence of larvae are made if appropriate. The primary reference sources used for species identification are Turner, 1966, 1971; Bartsch, 1908; Purushotham er al., 1971; Clapp, 1923, 1925; and Menzies, 1951, 1959. Verification of identifications are periodically re-questal from Dr. Ruth Turner, llarvard University or Dr. K. Elaine lloagland, Lehigh University. Statistical Analysis { Statistical analysis was made of data from 6-month (long-term) panels only. Parameters which were analysed included presence / absence and abundance of Teredo navalis, presence / absence and abundance of Bankia gouZdi, and percent destruction. Because of the distinctive and limited
L A-8 e L TABLE A-2. RATING SCALE FOR TEREDINID AND Limnoria ATTACK [ Teredinidae No. of tubes Percent I per panels filled
- Attack Rating 1-5 <5 Trace 6-25 5-10 Slight 26-100 11-25 Moderate 101-250 26-50 Medium heavy
{ 251-400 51-75 licavy
>400+** 76-100 Very hetvy
- Percent filled depends upon size of specimens present in panels
** Arbitrary number assigned to panels 76-100 percent filled.
[ Limnorla No. of tunnels Total no. per sq. inch of tunnels Attack Ratir; 1 1-85 Trace 10 86-850 Slight - 25 851-2125 Moderate ^ 50 2126-4250 Medium heavy 75 4251-6375 Heavy 100* 6375-8500 Very heavy
- Ratings of approximately 100 per square inches indicate the maximum density beyond which it is impossible to count
[ E E
A-9 TEREDINIDAE
;v C.- .m .1 c l .j . Q. .I - "f i g- 6:. .. .
.::,,',3:
~-
i ..
.' i ec..gn. y f'L pi 82 ;DN1
' 4p.f:A.%j+M b[ *... .Pg. j;,,.]p
'b
". ? . ~ ', t ,u, j -
'p[, ,[ . '
C). )%*dy
+ [, i... . 1 s : rt
?: L ,; A - ,#.
. ;. i s -
' 9 N :. f ,d,& l;y *,' .
t' w s-
' y%,).
ur 10 . ; l. , . f' 3
. .3
.7,' j' .- j? i ,.
-;'< r I
! 44,{.- .1 3 4d .t.w' W-c g' t a
~j~
p
'Y A' -
i ai A xN li; l.? . : lg1 ,.s; e ( T } l ' '. .,Q. s,l 4
......~..
s, , . c g f.mlI o PM k
. O' l d f.*;.h*:
C. ":: .iQ . , y , 1 [~p . .,- : * . O ?.., O'.A I 2
* * '3 J . -
Qf .A
%'. 6}. p.1,., 's, i f.Js.; {' . l pg@,p
..., ~.,s .
' . . , ' ? !. i
.i'. 'O e r'
~
.p '/ R.
e ' ,," ] .J ..
.3rjJJ',<:
.y -
g 1,...a
. / .a y : ..f w v . , u, . .s.
. ,,, f o i .
i is 3 :g;J :. '1p 'a.' 3 :.?I . ,Q
- gy . r ;.h
- p. , o ,
* .%*.,. - y. . .c.
. s :-!
'% ; %'\.
fe ,1 ' . ' $ !.h
- 7. m. .f.%' g .V -
. J c
.;~. y,
. lm e. m .L1s7 .?.q . 9 3s c.'] s. r,.,y:, s.
> .+ ', q%R%
- t. 9 . 7 f , '. lh.4. .s
.i ?. -
gy :.
- 2 ,q%f.OfG ,e .,W g
., p ; -
- c. 3 1,. -
fr. Trace Slight Moderate
.. w, ~ . ~ s.ne. :.
.....)
fM?g'%4!h,tlb;{y<,*1 y ^* : y.Gi';.c*fy, .
, q..!u,4_.$
- '?
t.
.s .- p' , <
- w. . <.% , g.,QC e
. .. . . e,M.j .?Ay/h,$"}.* ..%;..:@: , .,* ' .',-
S
.,f* f; Y'S'.@
zw . . i ' c. [ . e.34 : 1; 2..ip.::: - PT d ,d'n @p...J.
$ '. .9;.'< gh:$ .
?!;8' Mb.$$t S$fd'i
'^ * ' .
% r.MOl t +$ w t y:
- ; p. ' g.
;:.".'Uq: 0.4.$.W(-.),-l W' u- A a.M
- t . .; 4;g L
{4,) . ' :.g.,.. 1m".c,%: . r.:.>;. C . ey .: , .
~. * [: . I -
Yh % -
*:" t ' *[M l- _; .. 2 .. .
2.wi ;r? ~ fu:cp- aj;.1 l;w.. .Q.~c:.- ? e
- t
- .b '3'. ..%.5&r.
e.. .
...c . : ..wiy..R.. !vb .g 5 ry
! s. n
.w~.t.vp F..vA: p:m e .v
*! n i >". n. M -
.sx @ y;:,'::
t 9 g.,s. n - u:. ; ;.' V :y; . .,,.g.v.. - na w%
.<w.kQT
- +. y : 'y- .a b . <%c:..
, e:F !.ap;iyf?i.;.M . Je.u ' nnn Moderately Heavy Heavy fyy r l'ICURt A-3. RATI:T. OF TEREDINID ATTACK
L A-10 [ LIMNORIDAE ( ,- t ,. 5 ,.,, e . [ f. g -, ..
' ; .'.; . . is
,. . , i. ' :i a
~
. . :( . .e ,m. a '...;,.i. v'. .l.: :,,c:t Q :,. ,. (* .,;
. ..W ,:4 ,,,] .
.< t., . . : t,,1.h9,. e :;.',y,$i; s
;<p 4J :, e..<:'"i 'n ,iz.
i .t /- f w' . O ': 's%.q;.-{h[.,D.W'.g '> ',';, . 'k\'f,'
.i. . . ,,, . gs -
',// 2.f'.r$h . j' .w 2
( -
.u ,.i
~h ; ;,,!.. '.,, *.1 '
~ ,p
- er.?.z,y % 7.h.. w {.i,..<.,y y .';q; , w.n
.a 4",- . ..
[ r kg- ~
/
,Q1.a:/ ..\. P/p 7"s..*Gj%g&'td)
.T .
3,ij/,k>:e.ap.+.g -
...s4 r
.8. ' . . ht'f'*J 'I b"6
-h- . ga. -
t -
- 3. ,. \ 3,.*.u.,
~
h:
?
,-,.x m .
p [
- 4 %,ii <' .'p
+:.:%.>}!f
~
(}w
--(y+' ice +.
** 'y f' I' t. k-
.:{lGl f ~{ diJ
[ , g 9: - 't' c ; 7
'- x 3
,ne: M E - s w3 /, f. >f ,),{ tijjp fh]82 e ., a . .. g iAtM.% lti3
, ' .,'I .
p yr. g m.v'..f A:mi.>M..p<,;.Mg1..g' s [ 4f
, ll !
,';.- w f* '1
.- ,8 ,
/(. I,18
. . .9,; ,/.',3 i,$j. ;,.'., N.s.'.U;.%p) y 'g )a. N
- c. ..
' @N, .,; .' ,',. f,; i.)! (d,, . .\.
. jef,:-lj.j(.'{.l' ( f.)t.]:
.. .f,j/. ' g.i'y,i. P ).l'nf: yy.I.j'},.p .... 4.,g
.. . . p .s
[ ..'l.
.: y n,
'.. ,,,v.n:.*1.%w.Mys g'm' i llc ,a & . =.e9 ;l,
,1, m
' ~- '
Trace Slight Moder r te f b'M g).$d .f f b'I. 0 '. 5,hb5.N NT sh . NE.h.
.. p .. Q, ggg g214g pl , .
3a g' %yw;y. .:.ym-:,m.,
.t~.;mLK c. :;:z .. ,A'A$1 !^ - s ;C. gg':h@$,$.
p.
,p i
[ **. *p
}
- y. . ? "';'
n k;'1 3z 4M'*~; , . lQg fab q*% ;' c '.
g.;;y,y;.f ?p'swi55
.g :.
,o;G
.i'4 p-*i j,:}*g}&,f,'. ',.P .
u
,b .- : M % W .:2. p b:m. , hM, e
'*? - -M,Ch % .L'h Y .f-V. ".s s
a , q. I,d/ {; h .7.T.* i.zQck:. , d-f2M $d'**.h*Mb
'tg %q%W4." '
- 1. -
l'fY;",5 - 'EOM'% YI" I?' bkE ' hk3; ff g y$jf . - t t $.$kk2.:g.d
. .- ~~.gf' ?
"$$$gg g hszy f[#
; 'l $ 5, di:.i.25.y. lE$ E'$Q&W'.x..[t@
1 ' :; . ,[4if ;' U. ., - i h '*[*(Yh ,O("h)*:{'$ b i' f %, Y A khk b'si ',' N '{',h. h k$$$$h &$$ :
?
Y$hhk
- f. k . h,l[,.ht- f. k f,b.bhfiki.kkhT. . , ,, , , [* h ' [*. k h k .# ~ ~ .. v.
?;f- I h .kh . '. ,c h
< i' s t *- r '
<l
,'f_.!
*- s ?,._; % .~C. ':.R. '-h .;::f ,,;:'i.h " t.'&g y %+7';;', ~N.c.'%f^ :.\'i
$c.d,in,, flE4N!lf GW g W ds 2 'E $y?8V
^-
Moderately Heavy Heavy ry FIGURE A-4. RATING OF f.lNNORID ATTACK
l l A-ll I distribution of T. bartschi, statistical analyses were not considered necessary to determine significant dif ferences between stations for this species. Analyses of variance were carried out on presence / absence data and on loge (abundance +1) for T. navalis and B. gouldi. These tests were run on data collected from January, 1976 through November, 1980; all 1975 data were excluded because data were collected only from July for 1-month panels, and October for 6-month panels, resulting in an incomplete data set for that year. Essentially no specimens were collected from long-term panels removed in the spring months of April, May and June, therefore, these months were also excluded from the analyses. Finally, the e me analyses were repeated excluding any long-term panels exposed for less than 6 months. Excluding such panels involved 68 cases and the resultant data set can be summarized as follows: 1976, all data retained; 1977, Stations 5, 7, 8 retained for all months, March data re-tained for all stations, September-December data retained for all stations except 4A, Station 4A data retained for October-December, all other cases I deleted; 1978, Station 1 data for January deleted, Stations 10A and 10B data retained for October-December only, all other cases retained; 1979, Station 13 data for January deleted, Station 8 data for August deleted, all other cases retained; 1980, Station 16 data far April deleted, all other cases retained. The ANOVA calculations include main effects for the original factors of month, station and year, but la order to simplify the fitting of the model, 2-way and 3-way interactions were based on summary factors. These include grouping the months into seasons (winter = January, February, March; spring (deleted here) = April, May, June; rammar = July, August, September; and fall = October, November, December) and stations into regions (Region 1 (near OCNCS) = Stations 5, 6, 7, and 8; Region 2 (south) I = Stations 2, 3, 4, and 4A; Region 3 (east) = Stations 1, 16, and 17; Region 4 (near north) = Stations 9, 10, 10A, 10B, and 11; and Region 5 (north) = Stations 12, 13, 14, and 15). Because the program available would not fit main effects in I. terms of original factors and interactions in terms of summary factors,
I A-12 the following procedures was used. ANOVAs were first calculated with main effects and interactions in terms of the summary factors (season, region and year). The calculation was then repeated for the main effects of month, station and year. The results of the two ANOVAs were then I combined by adding the sums of squares associated with the rvtin ef fects (full factors), 2-way interactions (summary factors) and 3-way inter-actions (summary factors). The residual mean square based on the com-bined fit was used as the error variance estimate and is considered to be more appropriate than the error estimate based on the summary factors. F-ratios and F-tests vere recalculated based on the combined fit-error estimates. ANOVAs carried out on the percent destruction data were per-formed on data sets similar to tnose presented above, that is both with all panel data except the April-May-June boards, and then excluding data from panels exposed for less than six months. In addition, these I ANOVAs were performed on transformed data, that is, rather than using the " percent destruction" as recorded, the value 2 arcsin N/ proportion ucstruction was used. " Percent" was changed to " proportion" by dividing each value by 100, thus changing a 0-100 scale to a 0-1 ccale. The arcsine trans-formation is used with percentage data so that the variabilities of the transformed data will be nearly constant across a broad range of " percent destruction" values. This induces closer adherence to the standard ANOVA assumption of constant variability. The program used for ANOVA calculations I was that given in " Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" (Nie,11111, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975). Multiple classification analyses (MCA) were then used to quantify the systematic variation detected by the analysis of variance procedures (Nie et al., 1975). This output, which is a display rather than a particular test, provides information about the patterns of effects of each factor, and therefore, about the reasons underlying significant effects observed in the analysis of variable calculations. It is appro-priate only if the interactions among factors are not practically or statistically significant. I
I I i l I A-13 The MCA output provides the grand mean of all the responses.
" Unadjusted deviations" are deviations from the grand mean of the sample averages in each level of each factor, not accounting for the ef fects of any of the other factors. " Adjusted for independent deviation" are devia-tions from the grand mean of the effects of each category when the other factors are adjusted for in an additive manner. These adjustments are made by fitting an additive analysis of variance model in the factors . (i.e., main effects only, and not interactions) and estimating the effects of the levels of each factor from the coef ficients in the model. For nearly balanced data, the adjusted and unadjusted deviations should be similar.
Bonferroni t-statistic (Miller, 1966) was used to compare means of treatment levels in a pairwise fashion to determine the sources of significant effects that have been observed in analysis of variance tests. Bonferroni's procedure is based on the two sample Student t-test with sig-nificance L.vels adjusted to account for simultaneity. Let 5 1 , 5 2' 5kbe k sample means based on N1 , N2 , ...Nk , observations respectively. Let Mt , M2 , ... M be k the corresponding popula-tion means. These sample averages might originate as the average values in k levels of a factor under study. Let s2 = error SS/ error df denote the error mean square from an analysis of variance, based on y degrees of freedom. Suppose we wish to make r pairwise comparisons among M 1 , M2 **
- I M.k For example, to test flo :Mi = Mj i/ j = 1, ..., k we must make r= k (k-1) pairwise comparisons.
2 Ilo will be rejected at significance level a if I Ni -N j l
>t (F; 1 - a/2r)
%[ 1 + 1 ni nj for any pair i, j where t (P; 1 - a/r) is the upper a/2r point of the student I t distribution with Pd.f.
I
{: A-14 h-This procedure leads to the confidence intervals xi - Ej - t ( Pt 1-o/2r)s V 1 1 !!i-M3 .1 Xi-Ej+t ( F; 1
+ 1 */2r)s V1 + 1 ni nj ni nj
(. _ l
. with overall probability 1-a that all r confidence intervals calculated are
[. correct. The means iM , Mj are significantly different if the confidence
' interval does not contain zero.
Student. Newman Keuls (SNK) Multiple Range Test is used to [' -compare the means of treatment levels following an' analysis of variance, in order to determine the reasons for significant effects that have baen observed. It is based on a succession of tests utilizing Tukey's studentized { range statistic. f (- 1 Let 51 , 5 2, .. 5 denote k the sample averages in groups 1, 2, l
... k based on nt, n2, ... nk observations respectively. Let 41 ,p2' *
( pk be the corresponding population means. Let s2 denote the error mean square from an analysis of variance, based on F d.f. The SNK procedure { assumes - ni, = n2 = . . . = nk, but minor differences in the nj 's can be tolerated. We wish to determine which means are statistically significantly { different-from ene another at significance level a. { Let 51(1) 5 51 (2) I 51 (3) I 5 Ei(k) denote the ordered mean values, from smallest to largest. Let pi(1), pi(2)> **** Mi(k) denote the corresponding population means. Let q (1 - a; P , r) denote the upper a point of Tukey's studentized range statistic with degrees V of freedom and based on r groups. If Xi (k) - X i(1) 5q (1-a; V ; k) [.~ s/ Vn then all the means pi, p2'
- Uk are d2clared to be equal.
E
_ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ = _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - A-15 The procedure we use accommodates slightly unequal nj's by h.. comparing Xi (k) - X1(1) with q (1-a;M;k). {- s/ \ /1/2 l_ , 1 "i(k) "i(1) c { if X (k) - i(1) i q (1-a; y , k) s +1 V 1/2 1 ni(k)
}
ni(1)) then compare X tgy_1) - {. X i(1) with q (1-a; P , k-1) V 1/2 1 +1 ( "i(k) "i(1) and compare-
'51(k) - 1(2) with q (1-a; P , k-1).
V2 1 +1 Di(k) "i(2) If, for example, Xi (k-1) - Xi (1) is not significantly large, then pi(1), pi(2), Vi(k-1) are considered to be not significantly different. This process is continued with subsets of size k-2 within signi-ficant subsets of size k-1; subsets of size k-3 within significant subsets of size k-2, etc. At each stage I 1(p+h) - i(p) is compared with q (1 - a; y , h + 1). V1 1 .+1 2 n1(p+h) "i(p) At the conclusion of this process, the means ut, pj are declared significantly _
- different at level a if X , 5 did g 3
not fall within any nonsignificant subset. E-
{
'A-16
[ An unweighted.least squares regression fit of the destruction { ~ data on species abundance data was made. The percent destruction data were transformed into logits, where percent values of 0-100 were assigned values-of P = 0-1 to denote proportion. :The logit (proportion destruction) = loge y_P p.
-This transformation converts the (0,1) scale into a ( *, + =) scale, and stretches out the extreme values at both ends, allowing greater resolution.
(l Abundance data was transformed into loge (1 + abundance).
'The regression model used was:
.Y a logit (prop. destr.) " So + 81 In (1 + T Maval58) + S2 in (1 +B. gouldi)
+S3 in (1 + Teredo spp. ) + 84 (1 + T.barcsehi) + B5 in (1 + Teredinidae) + E.
where 8 = the unknown regression coefficient and E = error or unexplained variability. This regression analysis was carried out using.the method given in Nie et al. (1975). All calculations were performed on a CDC computer located at Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio. [ Results and Discussion [- Modifications to Panel Exposure Minimal modifications occurred during this report period. In [- April, 1980 the rack at Station 16 was found out of the water and was returned. Also at Station 16, one of the two creosoted panels was re- [ placed in November,1980 since it was missing when the rack was pulled out for inspection. Two racks were moved: at Station 14 the rack was moved 15' in May, 1980, because the dock from which it was suspended was falling apart. [.. It was resuspended in the same orientation as the original placement. In August, 1980, the rack at Station 10A was moved 15', to a position where { it would be in deeper water. E
[ A-17 Specics Identified As in the past three report periods, only three species of molluscan woodborers, the teredinids Bankia gouldi, Terado navalis, and h T. barcachi, were identified from either short-term or long-term panelc. A fourth species, T. furcifera, which was of concern during the first years of the program, has not been identified from any panel since { February, 1977. The crustacean woodborer, Limnoria tripunctata was again recorded at several stations. Short-term Panels Short-term panels are those exposed for a one-month period. These panels provide data on the time of year when settling occurs, the stations at which it occurs, survival of the juveniles, and the amount of growth that can take place in one month. Since the panels are pulled near the beginning each month, the results reflect activity during the previous month. The numbers and species of Teredinidae found in short-term panels during this report period arc <;hown in Table A-3. In each pre-vious year of this study, settlement oscurred during the months cf July through November (Richards et al.,1980); however, no settlement occurred this past year (1980) until August. Settlement was comparable in August and September, and much lighter in October and November. The numbers recorded were very low, and the percent of panel destroyed by these ( specimens was uniformly less than 1 percent (Table A-4). A comparison of the total not, er of Teredinidae settling on ( short-term panels ecch year from 1975 through 1980 is shown in Table A-5. It can be seen from these numbers that settlement in 1980 was much less that in any previous year, and that the increase in settlement reported { in 1979 (Richards et al., 1980) was reversed. This is particularly noticeable at Stations 5, 6, and 7, where the numbers recorded from [ monthly panels are an order of magnitude lower this year than last. The decrease at these stations may be related to the outage of the OCNGS during the months of January through mid-July, 1980, at which time water tempera-tures were similar to those recorded elsewhere in the bay, rather than [
r L A 18 L TABLE A-3 . NUMBERS OF TEREDINIDS IN SHORT-TERM PANELS [-~ -- REMOVED MONTHLY DECDiBER,1979 THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980* [ [ Site Aug Sep Oct Nov Total # T T 1 39 T 47T i i 83 2 3 4 4A .
~
5 3Bg,T 1gB 4 6 1gB isT 3 7 1 T iT 3T stb,T 10 l 8
- 9 - 10 B
10A 18 1 [ 10B 1T 4 g,T B 3Bg,T T 1 11 7 14 18 B 3 38 { 12 13 4 14 IgB I T 3 15 1 T 1 16 17
-
- Shott-term panels removed December, 1979 through July, 1980 were free of Teredinidae.
~
Bn - Bankia gouldi Tb - Tercdo bartachi Ts - Terado spp. _ T - Teredinidae M M
- - - - - . ._ - . _ . - - - . . _ _ . _ . . -- . - = . - .-_ . -
L - r' L A-19 I L I TABLE A-4 . PERCENT DESTRUCTION OF S110RT-TERM PANELS L REMOVED MONTIILY FROM DECDIBER,1979 THROUGH NOVEMBER; 1980* Site Aug Sep Oct Nov 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 3 F 4 > 4A i 5 <1 <1 6 <1 <1 7 <1 <1 <1 <1 I 8 9 10 10A <1 10B <l 11 <1 <1 <1 12 <1 <1 13 1 14 <1 <1 15 <1 16 f 17 I I i I
- Teredinids were not present in short-term panels re-moved from December, 1979 through July, 1980.
( l l I l
f t A-20 s ( I TABLE A-5. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TEREDINID SETTLEMENT IN SHORT-TERM PANELS i i Site 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 { ! l 8199 1090 654 1015 535 88 2 17 2 1 8 3 9 2 4 6 2 3 4 l ! 4A 6 5 4562 2 4 75 754 4 i I 6 2886 1 15 171 2 7 4 3 241 2983 3698 10 i 8 1 4 9 1 1 10 2 2 5
, 10A 1 54 1 10B 6 1 11 375 71 28 5 378 14 12 34 1 5 1 13 4 13 142 10 9 4 16 14 308 20 8 8 69 2 9
l 15 3 5 1 i f 16 2 m 17 117 3 6 Totals 16667 1207 957 4108 5731 127 i i B
~ A-21 elevated as they often are (See Appendix C). Ilowever, similar low abun-dances were recorded at all other sites in the bay, with the numbers at Station 1, a station not at all impacted by the power plant, showing an order of magnitude decline. Destruction. The average percent destruction of short-term panels for each year from 19'S through 1980 is given in Table A-6. The percent destruction recorded in 1975 is higher than that recorded in any " following year; last year, 1979, had the second highest overall average, while 1976, 1977, and 1978 are generally similar to each other. The r current report year, 1980, wa., similar to but slightly lower than 1976-L 1978 - Identifications. Individual species are rarely identified from L short-term panels, because the size of the specimens is generally very small (10 mm or less). During this report period, Taredo bartschi was u identified only once, from a short-term panel pulled from Station 7 in November (Table A-3). T. navalis was not specifically identified from ~ any short-term panel. Bankia gouldi was identified from panels at Stations 5, 6, 10A, 11, 12, and 14 (Table A-3), a distribution generally similar to I that recorded in 1979 (Richards et al., 1980, Table A-21, page A-42). The remaining identifications were either at the generic (Teredo spp.) or m family (Teredinidae) level, u A total of about 1200 short-term panels have been examined since F the beginning of this program in 1975. When the identifications of specimens from these panels are summarized on a presence / absence basis, ~ it is obvious that identification to species is made only a small percent-L age of the time. Table A-7 presents summaries for family, generic and specific identificatione. (Since Teredo furcifera was identified from only one short-term panel [ Station 2, August, 1975, Richards et al., 1976], it has not been included in this table). Some interesting patterns are sudgested by these data, however. Teredo navalis and Bankia gouldi were identified only from panels collected in the summer months, while T. bartschi was also identified from panels pulled in the fall. T. navalis was identified only from Regions 2, 3, and I
L, I [ A-22 l TABLE A-6 . 11EAN PERCENT DESTRUCTION OF SHORT-TERM PANELS REMOVED JULY T11ROUGII NOVDiBER,1975 THROUGli 1980
- Station 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1 13.0 3.6 2.8 1.6 4.4 0.8 2 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 3 0.4 0.4 4 0.4 .0. 2 0.4 0.4 4A - -
0.4 5 14.0* 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.8 0.4 6 11.6 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.4 0.4 3.2 3.0 3.2 0.8 I 7 1.0* 8 0.3* 0.2 9
- 0.2 0.2 I 10 10A 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.2 10E - - -
0.4 0.2 11 9.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 5.4 0.6 12 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.6 0.4 13 3.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 I 14 15 11.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 2.4 0.4 0.2 16 0.2 j g 17 3.8 0.4 0.6 l Station 4A established April, 1977. Stations 10A and 10B established April, 1978.
* - Incceplete data.
i I
I L A-23 l L TABLE A-7. SC01ARY OF NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF Terelo Ptavalis, e Tcreda bartachi, ALL Teredo, Bankia gouldi M D TERE-DINIDAE ON ONE-MONT11 PANELS IN BARNEGAT BAY Mon **. 2re Crouped by 9eason (Winter = Jan, Feb, Mar; Spring = Apr, May, Jun; Summer = Jul, Aug, Sep; , Fall = Oct, Nov, Dec), and Stations are grouped by Region: Region 1 (near OCNGS): Stas. 5,6,7,8; Region 2 (south): Stas. 2,3,4,4A; Region 3 (eas.t): Stas. 1,16,17; Region 4 (near north): Stas. 9,10, 10A,103,11; Region 5 (north): Stas. 12,13,14,15. u _ Terede ruvalis: Identified a Total of 14 Times P Year # Season # Region # 1975 0 Winter 0 1 0 1976 2 Spring 0 2 2 ! I 1977 1 Sumer 14 3 4 6 6 L 1978 1 Fall 0 1979 10 5 0 g 1980 0 l l Teredo h:rtadzi: Identified a Total of 13 Times l l Year # Season # Region # 1975 0 Winter 0 1 12 1976 0 Spring 0 2 0 1977 2 Sumer 9 3 1 1978 4 Fall 4 4 1 g 1979 6 5 0 i 1980 1 i All Teredo*: Identified a Total of 47 Times Year # Season # Region # 1975 7 binter 0 1 19 1976 6 Spring 0 2 7 1977 4 Sumer 41 3 11 1978 7 Fall 6 4 9 1979 21 5 1
'1980 2 All Sankia**: Identified a Total of 57 Times '
l Year # Season # Region # 1975 17 Winter 0 1 13 1976 6 Spring 0 2 5 1977 8 Sumer 57 3 2 1978 4 Fall 0 4 18 1979 13 5 19 1980 9 Teredinidae***: Identified a Total of 191 Times Year # Season # Reginn # l 1975 47 Winter 1 1 60 1976 21 Sp rin g 0 2 21 1977 26 Sumer 153 3 35 1978 23 Fall 37 4 30 1979 52 5 45 l s 1980 22
- Includes E. ruvalis, T. bartachi and Terado spp.
i
** Includer. Ban'ia
< gouldi and 82nkia sp.
l
*** Includes T. ru: ulic, T. bartassi, Terclo spp., 82nkia gouldi, Bankia sp. and !credinidae 4
l l
[ A-24
; 4, never from Region 1, which includes those stations closest to the OCNGS.
Bankia gouldi was identified from all regions, but primarily from Regions 1, 4, and 5. T. bartschi was identified almost exclusively from Region 1, ( vith one record from Region 4 (near north). All of the fall occurrences of T. bartschi and "all Teredo" were from Region 1 stations. ( Table A-8 presents a comparison of average water quality values for all stations for two seasons, summer and fall, and for those stations at which particular species were identified. It can be noted that the { average temperature at stat. ions at which Teredo bartschi was identified { in the fall was nearly 5*C higher than the seasonal average for all stations. Long-term Panels { Long-term panels are those exposed for a six-month period. { The results obtained from these panels give an integrated view of woodborer activity, including reproduction, settlement and survival, over the entire
]
period for which the panel has been exposed. The numbers and species of Teredinidae found in long-term panels during this report period are shown in Tables A-9 (December, 1979) through A-17 (November, 1980). No data are presented for ek months of April, May and June, 1980 because, as in most previous years teredinids were not found [ in any panel pulled duri ' ase months. In general, the abundance of woodborers was very low _.aroughout the Bay, compared to 1979 (the last report period). Panels pulled in December, 1979 and January and February, 1980 contained specimens ranging from very small (<1 - 10 mm) to very large (100 - 300 mm). The very small specimens, which suggest recently settled individuals, were limited primarily to Stations 5, 6, and 7 in Oyster Creek, Station 10A in a lagoon off Forked River, and Station 1 at Barnegat Inlet. { These were the only stations at which teredinids were found in March, 1980 (Table A-12), but none of the individuals from Stations 5, 6, and 7 were alive at collection.
L E A-25 m l TABLE A-8. AVERAGE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BAY, CALCULATED FOR SUIDIER (Jul, Aug, Sep) AND FALL (Oct, Nov, Dec) AND FOR STATIONS AT WIIICH WOODBORERS WERE IDENTIFIED FROM SHORT-TERM PANELS Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Temperature (C) Salinity c/oo pH DO (mg/1) Season: Summer Seasonal Average 25.4 22.0 7.9 7.0 Teredo navalis 23.9 23.4 8.5 8.2 (14 Occurrences) Teredo bartschi 27.1 19.5 7.4 6.5 (9 Occurrences) Bankia gouldi 26.2 21.5 7.8 7.3 I (57 Occurrences) Season: Fall Seasonal Averages 12.4 20.3 7.8 9.9 Teredo bartschi 17.1 20.1 7.1 9.0 (4 Occurrences) I I I . I I
n w m_ r t rm m rm rm rm e rm r-- m v w. v TABLE A-9. 'INCIDE14CE' 0F TEREDINIDAE Il$ LONG-TERM (6'HONTil) PhNELS SUBMERGED JUNE 4-5, 1979,. ^ AND REMOVED DECEMBERN12-13,-1979. No.-of . Percent Size Range . Station- Specimens Filled in~mm Species Identification' Remarks 1 400 99 5-75 100 Teredo navalis,'300 Teredinidae* 75 percent of specimens dead.
- 2. 23 >
30 75-190 23 T. navalis 3 2 5 105-120 1 Bankia gouldi, 1 T. navalis 4 6 13 50-150 6 B. gouZdi 4A 5 25 105-280 4 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis 5 .400 99 ** 10 Teredo bartschi, 390 Teredinidae 40 percent of panel missing. . No live specimens. 6 290 50 <1-85 170 T. bartschi, 120 Teredinidae Many T. bartschi with larvae in umbonate stage. '; 7 400 99 4-80 14 T. bartschi, 386 Teredinidae 10 percent or panel missing. No' live specimens, j 8 3 20 240-360 3 B. gouldi [l w 15 90-280. 3 T. navalis e 9 3 10 3 9 145-220 2 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis ; 10A 70 97 13-190 23 B. gouldi, 47 T. bartschi l 10B 9 55 140-330 7 B. goulds, 2 T. navalis I
- 11. 400 99 ** 7.B. gouldi,.393 Teredinidae 30 percent of panel missing.
.Only 1 live specimen (a gouldi)
-12 21 85 85-220 21.B. gouldi 13 57 97 22-240 57 B. gouldi 14 64 99 50-145 64 B. gouldi 15 2 7 140-160 1 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis XS 0 - - -
17 3 6 40-175 3 T. navalis o Damaged,or too small to speciate. 00 Tubes broken, no data taken.
B M M Q. M O. f~~l O O O O M O M O O _ Q O. U TABLE A-10. INCIDENCE OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM (6 MONTH) PANELS SUBMERCED JULY 9-10, 1979, AND REMOVED JANUARY 7-9, 1980 No. of- Percent Size Range
-Station Specimens Filled in mm Species Identification Remarks l' 400' 99 8-80 220 Teredo navalis,'180 Teredinidae* 30 percent of panel missing.
2 15 35 45-190 13 T. navalis,'2 Teredinidae 3 5- 15 70-140 4 Bankia gouldi, 1 T. navalis 4 3 6 60-100 2 B. gouldi, 1 Teredinidae 4A. 6 25 65-195 4 B. gouldi, 2 T..navalis ! 5 393 99 7-190 3 B. gouldi, 390 Teredo.bartschi Several T. bartschi with umbonate larvae l' 6 84 25 <1-130 '39 T. bartschi, 45 Teredinidae 1 T. bartschi with umbonate larvae. ! 7 405 -99 3-85 5 B. gouldi, 200 T. bartschi, '15 percent of panel missing. 200 Teredinidae Only B. gouldilive 8 0 - - - 9 1 6 230 1 T. navalis 10 0 - - - R 10A 58 95 20-290 23 B. gouldi, 34 T. bartschi, 1 T. bartschi dead 1 T. navalis 10B. 5 15 25-230 3 B. gouldi, 1 T. bartschi,
.1 T.'navalis
,11 284 99 12-130 4 B. gouldi, 110 T. navalis, 40 percent of panel missing.
170 Teredinidae q 12 29 90 40-255 28 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis l 13 12 45 70-170 12 B. gouldi 14 14 30 20-120 12 B. gouldi, 2 Teredinidae 1 B. gouldi, 2 Tetedinidae dead. 15 11 35 60-90 3 B. gouldi, 7 T. navalia, 1 Teredinidae 16 0 - - - 17 7 12 30-115 7 T. navalis
- Damaged or'too small to speciate.
7 O R. _ _ .U M O .O n n n U U M M O M 1-~ n . TABLE A-llo - INCIDENCE OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM -(6 MONTil) PAEELS SUB21ERGED AUGUST 6-7,1979,lAND
' REMOVED FEBRUARY 5-6, 1980-
-No. of Percent Size Range Station Specimens Filled in mm. Species Identification Remarks-1 -500 99 <1-34 300 Teredo navalis, 200 Teredinidac*' 40 percent' dead.- 1 T. navalisE with ripening gonads.
2 13 35 95-190 12 T. navalis, 1 Teredinidae 1 dead. 3 0 - - - l 4' 5 9 42-105 2 Bankia gouldi, 3 T. navalic
'4A 3 9 115-150 2 Teredo-navalis,1 Teredinidae 5 450 99 5-50 1 B. gouldi, 449 Teredo hartschi None alive.
6 150 15 <l-105 21 T. bartschi, 1 T. navalis, None alive, 4 T. bartschi with 128 Teredinidae dead;1arvae in tubes. g 7 500 99 6-45 55 T. bartschi, 445 Teredinidae None' alive. $ 4 8 2 5 45-225 1 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis ~T. navalis dead. 9 2 10 235 1 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis 10 0 - - - 1 10A 97 35 <1-200 31 T. bartschi,1 T. navalis, 60 percent of T. bartschi dead,- ! 65 Teredinidae 2 of these with dead larvae in 1 tubes. 10B 4 13 25-195 3 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis 11 140 75 13-145 1 T. bartschi , 139 T. navalis .T. bartschi dead, larvae'in tubes.. 12 2 4 115 2 B. gouldi 13 2 4 130-140 2 B. gouldi 14 11 30 60-205 8 B. gouldi, 3 T. navalis 15 1 2 85 1 T. navalis-16 0 - - -
- 17. 4 4 25-85 4 T. navalis
- Damaged or too small to speciate.
m a rm rn m m rm m r~m rm r~m r- , . , .r m em r- r m v TABLE A-12. INCIDENCE OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM (6 MONTH) PANELS SUBMERGED SEPTEMBER 10-12,-1979, AND REMOVED MARCil 3-4, 1980
- ~ . . . . - .u.... - . - - . - . .~ .. _s No. of Percent Size Range Station Specimens Filled in ;rg Species Identification Remarks l
1 -54 <1 <l-12 2 Toredo navalis, 52 Teredinidac* 2-4A 0 - - - l
- j. 5 285 5 <1-27 22 Teredo bartschi, 236 Teredinidae None alive.
6 278 3 <l-19 12 T. bartschi, 266 Teredinidae None alive. ' 7- 310 5 <l-35 40 T. bartschi, 270 Teredinidae None alive. 8-10 0 - - - 10A 59 1 <l-8 1 T. bartschi, 58 Teredinidae None alive, h~ 10B-17 0 - - - O Damaged or too small to speciate.
--'----------I
\l r
Ya m. r - D r N A , 0 - 8 9 r 1 9 m r 7 Y s . R k d A r a U a e a N m d - A e r J R 1 D E G R m - E r M B a U + S * - e m S a - L d r E i, N n A i P d e m ) r r H n e T o T N i O t 1 M a m c ,
-r 6
( f i s i i
- l M t . a R n - p - v -
E e p a \ - T d I s n r G N s o o d d O e e e L i r r 1 c a e N e T T
-r I S
p 1 5 E A D0
, I 8 - N9 r I1 e g
D E , n R8 am 2 E - Rm 3 m T7 - 4 - - -
- en 9 r FY zi OL i U S EJ C
ND m r EE DV t t e I O nd a CM ee i NE cl - 1 - 1 - c I R rl < e ei p m 3 PF s o 1- t A l s l m E L B f n oe m 0 1 0 6 0 a m A .i s T oc o N e o p m S t r o d n e m r o B 0 7 1 g a i 6 1 - m t - 7 - 1 2 a a 1 8 1 1 D t S
- m l. 1l l
rm. _r m em rm v rm r,.. r m. rm- r-m. r- r, r-- r-m r- m v TABLE A-14. INCIDENCE OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM (6 MONTH) PANELS SUBMERGED FEBRUARY 5-6, 1980, AND REMOVED AUGUST 4-5, 1980 No. of Percent Size Range Station Specimens Filled in mm Species Identification Remarks 1 5 <1 1-31 1 Teredo navalis, 4 Teredinidaa* 2 6 12 55-145 6 T. navalis Ripening gonads. 3-6 0 - - - 7 2 1 1-72 1 T. navalis, 1 Teredinidae 8 0 - - - 9 1 <1 1 1 Teredinidae 10 0 - - - 10A 7 <1 1-5 1 Bankia gouldi, 6 Teredinidae i u 10B 1 <1 3 1 Teredinidae 11 31 30 6-120 29 T. navalis, 2 Teredinidae Ripening gonads. 12 2 1 1-70 1 T. naualis, 1 Teredinidae 13 0 - - - 14 1 2 110 1 T. navalis 15-17 0 - - - 0 Damaged or too small to speciate.
m m m m m rm m o m rm m m rm em m v m - - TABLE A-15. INCIDENCE OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM (6 MONTil) PANELS SUBMERGED MARCH 3-40 1980, AND REMOVED SEPTEMBER 2-3, 1980 No. of Percent Size Range I Station Specimens Filled in mm Species Identification Remarks f i 1 43 20 4-70 35 Teredo navalis, 8 Teredinidae* 2 7 15 70-150 7 T. navalis 1 dead. 3-4A 0 - - - 5 4 6 40-130 3 Bankia gould',,1 T. navalis l 6 0 - - l 7 2 4 60-150 1 B. gouldi,1 T. navalis 8 2 5 115-140 1 B. gouldi,1 T. navalis T. navalis dead. l 9 3 7 40-272 3 B. gould? 10 0 - - - 10A 13 18 7-100 13 B. gouldi Y u 20B 2 2 26-75 2 B. gouldi 11 33 50 22-170 29 B. gouldi, 4 T. navalis 12 20 6 <1-65 12 B. gouldi, 8 Teredinidae 2 Teredinidae dead. 13 0 - - - 14 1 5 235 1 B. gouldi 15 2 2 40-85 1 B. gouldi , 1 T. navalis 16 0 - - - 17 1 1 85 1 T. navalis Dead. O Damaged or too small to speciate.
m W r"~~t . O m rm w r~m . v _ r~ '" '" !"~ m r" m
+:
-r TABLE A-16. INCIDENCE OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM ~(6 MONTil) PANELS SUBMERGED IN APRIL 7-9, 1980, AND REMOVED OCTOBER 6-7, 1980 No. of Percent. Size Range
-Station Specimens Filled in mm ' Species Identification Femarks 1 200 85 35-110 200 Teredo navalis
-2 12 25 90-183 11 T. navalis, 1 Teredinidae* 8 dead.
3 0 - - - 4 2 2 75-80 1 T. navalis, 1 Teredinidae 1 dead. 4A 0 - - - i5 4 20 130-350 4 Bankia gouldi 6 1 <1 1 1 Teredinidae 7 11 15 <1-270 1 B. gouldi, 3 T. navalis, Few umbonate larvae in 1 T. 2 Teredo bartschi, 5 Teredinidac bartschi. > i 8 1 5 320 1 B. gouldi O; u 9-10 0 - - - 10A 17 75 95-260 17 B. gouldi Some with ripe gonads. 10B 0 - - - 11 61 70 9-210 13 B. gouldi, 8 T. navalis, 40 cead, empty tubes. 40 Teredinidae 12 10 30 5-175 10 B. gouldi 13 0 - - - 14 2 5 112-192 1 B. gouldi, 1 T. navalis 15 1 3 160 1 B. gouldi 16 0 - - - 17 2 2 60-119 2 T. navalis 1 dead.
- Damaged or too small to speciate.
D O O O O _O O O_ O O O O O O O O O O .O . F-TABLE A-17. INCIDENCE OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM (6 MONTH) PANELS SUBMERGED MAY 8-10, 1980, AND REMOVED NOVEMBER 5-6, 1980 No. of Percent Size Range Stations Specimens Filled in mm Species Identification Remarks 1 300 95 20-130 300 Taredo navalis 2 13 30 85-215 11 T. navalis, 2 Teredinidae* 9 dead. 3-4A 0 - - - ! 5 2 15 340-370 2 Bankia gouldi l 6 0 - - - 7 58 1 <1-60 1 Teredo bartschi, 57 Teredinidae 8-9 0 - - - 10 1 2 155 1 B. gouldi 10A 8 40 150-240 8 B. gouldi y 10B 1 5 230 1 B. gouldi I" 11 45 85 60-180 34 B. gouldi, 11 T. navalis 12 11 30 52-315 11 B. gouldi 13 3 12 190-242 3 B. gouldi 14 - 0 - - - 15 4 12 112-202 4 B. gouldi 16 0 - - - 17 9 15 52-135 6 T. navalis, 3 Teredinidae 4 dead. 1 0 Damaged or too small to speciate. 1 l
A-35 The size range of individuals collected in March is much less and maximum length much smaller (Table A-12) than that of indi'viduals. collected in December, January,.or February. Panals removed in March, { 1980, were exposed from mid-September, 1979, when water temperatures were falling. Individuals settling during the warmer months of June, July, and August could conceivably grow faster and to a greater size than individuals which settled in September. The cold water temperature from November on-wards could slow or impede growth resulting in the smaller sizes observed in the March specimens. There is no way to ascertain from these data whether the very smallest (~ l mm) specimens observed in March,1980 were newly settled (i.e. , within the previous 2-4 weeks) individuals, or whether they had settled at the beginning of the exposure period (September) { and had failed to grow. The lack of settlement on the one month panels re-moved December through bbrch (p. A-17) suggests that no settlement.was taking place during this time. However, the larger individuals in any of these long-term panels had reached a size at which they could reproduce, ! and they could account for the smallest specimens seen. Very few teredinids were found in panels removed in July, and
' these were present only at Stations 7 and 11 (Table A-13). Abundances re-mained very low throughout the months of August through November, 1980, but teredinids were found at 16 of the 20 stations during this period
'(Tables A-14 to A-17).
Species Distribution and Dominance. Tables A-18 through A-20 present a summary of the numbers of Teredo bartschi, T. navalis, and Bankia gouldi, respectively, recorded from long-term panels since July, h 1975. Domincnt species at each station are indicated in Table A-21.
. Teredo bartschi. Teredo bartschi continued to be present at
. Stations 5, 6, and 7 in Oyster Creek and at Station 10A, Christmas Tree Lagoon, off the south branch of Forked River'(Table A-18). One individual h each was found at Stations 10B and 11, in January and February, 1980,
.respectively. Results from long-term panels removed December, 1979 through March, 1980 show T. bartschi to be dominanc (Table A-21) at
{_ Stations'5, 6, 7, and 10A. However, only 3 individuals were identified since March, 1980: these were at Station 7 in October and November, 1980. E..
l .. L. I A-36 TABLE A-18, NUMBER OF Tendo bartschi, IN IDWTERM PAKELS RDt3VED JULY,1975 THROUCH NOVC13ER,1980 L st at t er L 2 3 4 44 5 6 7* 8 9 10 10A 108 11 12 13 14 15 16 LF
, Jul - - - - -
.n Aug - - - - -
E Sep - 2962 402 - - - M oct - 46 315 - - Nov - 393 300 - - Dec - 21 7 - - Jan - - 46 240 - - Feb - 350 398 - - -- Mar - 14 14 - - Apr - - - May - - = 2 Jm - - - 0 Jul - - - Aug - - - Sep - - - Oct - - - Nov - 11 - - Dec - - - Jan - - - Feb - 4 - - Mt - - = Apr - - -
% Ny - -
E Jun - -
" Jul - -
hg - - Sep 1 = = cet 11 - - Nov 185 - - Dec 130 - - Jan 160 - -
*Feb 200 - -
R mr 1 2 81 - - 0 Apr - - h1 Jurr Jul 71 e Aug 2 129 EkP 91 536
" Oct 90 1 360 Nov 79 22 300 Dec 2M 35 400 Jan 73 11 300 Feb 7 18 70 Nr Apr l
. Ny I g Jan d
Jul Aug 17 160 5'P 240 500 17 Oct 35 64 100 20 NOV 1 160 38 - 29 D+e 10 170 14 47 Jan 390 39 200 34 1 . Feb 449 21 $5 3g g Mr ' 22 12 40 1 Apr ** May O Jun
$ Jul Aug Sep Oct k ' Now a
* = New rack substerged September, 1975; location changed to present site, December, 1975.
= = Panel station not in operation.
~ = ' Panel missing.
m n' _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _
[ A-37 s" L TABLE A-19 Nt.NBER OF Taredo ra2palis IN LONG-TERM PANILS RD10VED JU1J.1975 TifROUCH ?.0VEM3ER, 1980 Station 1 2 3 4 4A 5 6 7* 8 9 10 10A 108 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
, Jul - - - - =
g Aug - - - - -
- Sep .- - - -
Oct 1 1 - 3 2 87 Nov '3 to - 2 - - 1 2 90 Dec- 17 4 3 - 1 ~- - 100 1 4 Jan -- 5 - - - 156 , 101 Feb 60 6 - 1 1 - - 3 -- 1 33 Lr' 4M - - - Apr . - =
. hy - - - ; Jun - - -
- Jul - - -
Aug 37 - - - Sep 423 - 1 - - 23 1 Oct 230 1 - 3 - - 13 8 rev 400 - 2 - - 22 17 De-t 400 1 - 1 - - 11 1 22 Jan 300 3- - 11 4 Feb 400 -
- - 4 2-Mar 1 - % Apr -
2 May - -
- Jun , ,
Jul - - Aug - - Sep 160 - - 1 1 Oct 300 1 - - 1 1 Mov 300 twc 6 1 3S0 1 - - 1 Jan 490 3 - - 2 4
,Feb 375 - -
y akr 220 - - 1
- Apr 2 - -
M.i v Jun Jul 1 e
= Aug 1 ' % S*P 115 1 Oct 379 3 1 !
Nov 430 5 Dec 4Cs 3 2 8 4l $ Jan. 400 6 Feb 400 4 f 1 i Har 30 1 1 Apr May R Jun O Jul 19 Aug 47 1 1 } 160 2 1 , Sep 450 20 1 2 1 2 80 2 12 3 } Oct 500 23 1 2 1 20 2 Nov 1 13 3 500 17 1 1 -- 3 2 1 1 3 4 Dec 100 23 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 j Jan 220 13 1 2 1 110 Feb 300 12 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 139 1 3 7 1 7l 4 Har 2 Apr Ma7 E Jun .
% Jul 5 i Aug 1 6 1 29 1 1 ;
Sep ?$ 7 1 1 1 4 1 1 Oct 260 11 1 3 8 Nov 300 11 1 2 i 11' ' 6
* = New rack submerged September,1975.
f L - = Panel station not in operation.
~= Panel missing. i
l l A-38 l I { i TABLE A-20. NLNBER 0F Jankia g~elli IN LOhTERM PANELS RD10VED JnY,1975 THROUGH N0VD'BER,1990 l Station 1 2 3 4 4A 5- 6 7* 8 9 10 10A ICM 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Jul - - l 0 Aug 2 13 - 2 42 14 - - 4 - - 387 16 100 335 1 5 ! $ Sep 4 51 - 988 268 - 27 -
- 223 45 340 400 8 3 2 Oct 3 2 47 - 135 3 2 27 -
- 374 50 399 400 4 4 1
-I
!.ov tee 1 4 12 4
9 26 15 8 4 100 18 5 1 2 1 12 8
- 251 220 46 400 400 18 399 400 2
2 10 1 1 i I Jan - 2 14 10 - 9 160 1 1 5 -
- 240 22 64 400 6 1
! reb 2 1 5 - 2 1 1 - - 64 8 -- 8 ! tiar - - - Apr - - - 4 !!ay - - - 1 ; Jun - - - } " Jul - 1 2 - - 4 2 Aug 2 - 2 2 2 1 - - 6 2 24 7 3 Sep 3 - 1 2 2 3 1 - - 23 5 31 11 7 Oct 1 - 3 1 4 1 1 1 - - 11 8 26 19 1
- ov 1 5 - 4 5 1 - -
31 7 20 17 2 ( Det 4 - 1 3 5 2 - - 31 6 21 10 3 Jan - 1 2 - - 42 6 3 2 Feb 2 - 1 1 1 - - 31 2 2 Mar - - - , Apr - - - ! R my - - j l i Jun - - I i Jul - - Aug 1 1 3 1 - - 15 1 5 1 1 l j sep 2 1 6 4 1 1 - - 82 3 13 5 Oct 1 3 3 7 2 - - 59 7 10 9 ! ::ov 1 5 7 1 - - 39 7 8 5 Dec 1 4 1 7 1 2 - - 25 7 18 9 Jan 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 - - 34 5 4 6 Fe b - - 1 1 1 ( I "ar - - l 1 Apr pay Jun Jul 1 2 m Aug 7 1 2 1 E Sep 1 1 2 14 7 9 i.
" Oc t 4 1 1 5 2 30 2 6 9 1 Nov 1 1 2 1 3 10 8 13 1 Dec 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 8 1 13 5
) Jan 3 2 1 1 8 3 17 1 Feb 1 2 17 Mar Apr R, Wy Jun
- Jul 1 28 Aug 1 2 1 4 1 130 5 11 29 i Sep 3 3 3 1 23 2 100 17 23 66 1 Oct 2 2 1 28 5 150 16 31 36 Nov 1 3 1 -- 2 33 3 6 20 36 41 Dec 1 6 4 3 2 23 7 7 21 57 64 1 Jan 4 2 4 3 5 23 3 4 28 12 12 3 Feb 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 '8 Mar Apr c NJF g Jun
" Jul 1 Aug 1 i Sep 3 1 1 3 13 2 29 12 1 1 Oct 4 1 1 17 13 10 1 1 Nov 2 1 8 1 34 11 3 4
* = New rack submerged September,1975.
, - = Panel station not in operation. j -- = Panel missing. s a 4
@ l l i I I 1 O P J t O J. t. _O n I L O n "
n n U C
,_ l' TABLE A-21. PRESENCE AND DOMINANCE OF SPECIES OF TEREDINIDAE IN LONG-TERM' PANELS RD10VED DECDIBER,1979 THROUGII NOVDiBER,1980 <
I L Location Banhia pouldi Teredo navalis Terado bartschi Terado app.*
'l / dominant 2 / dominant 3 / dominant /
4 / dominant / 4A ' dominant / 5 / / / dominant 6 / / dominant 7 / / / dominant -/- 8 / dominant '/
~
'I
> 1 l 9 / codominant ** / codominant d, I e
l 10 / doainant / 10A / / / dominant . 10B / dominant / / 11 / / dominant / 12 / dominant / 13 / dominant 14 / dominant / 15 / codominant ./ codominant-16
'17 / dominant * = -Specimens too small or in too poor condition for speciating. ** = Four specimens of each species. ' / = Species present.
i I A-40 Teredo bartschi is noticeably absent from all other stations in our study araa, cad its continued presence in Oyster Creek may be correlated with the operation of the OCNGS. Iloagland et al. (October, 1980) report this species from their station 14 at Warctown, south of Oyater Creek. This location is comparable to our Station 4A and may be influenced by the thermal discharge from the OCNGS (JCP&L 316(a) demon-I stration). Iloagland et al. reported occurrences in November, 1979. Richards et al. (1980) reported large numbers of T. bartschi at Oyster Creek stations during the months of July-September, 1979. It is possible that the T. bartschi found by lloagland et al. at Waretown had originated from the population in Oyster Creek. The decline in the Oyster Creek population from summer 1979 to summer 1980 may be attributabl to the e,hutdown of the OCNGS from January 5, 1980 through mid-July, 1980. Water temperatures were at ambient during the coldest winter months and this may have influenced the survival of T. bartschi, which is generally considered to be a warm-water species (Turner, 1973). However, this species has persisted through other cold winters in Oyster Creek (e.g., January - ttarch, 1977), following which recorded abundances were ext'remely low, followed then by periods of extremely high abundances (fall, 1978; fall, 1979; Table A-18). That !u T. bartschi is still present in Oyster Creek is evidenced by its occurr-ence at Station 7 in October and November, 1980. Because of its obviously distinct and limiced distribution, no further statistical analysis was made of the distribution and abundance data. Teredo navalia. Terado navalia was recorded from 16 of the 20 stations between December, 1979 and ttarch, 1980, but was present at only 10 stations between August and November, 1930 (Table A-19). It continued to be dominant (Table A-21) at Stations 1, 2, 11, and 17, while at Stations l 9 and 15 it was either co-dominant with Bankia gouldi, or dominant; however it has not been present at either of the latter two stations since February, 1980. The results of the analysis of variance of Teredo navalia are given in Table A-22 (based on loge [1 + abundance]) and Table A-23 (based
I { V
} R J l j l R R R R R R R f-~l R I~ l I l I I I ~l I~
I TABLE A-22 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF LOC e (1 + ASUNDA*:CE) 0F Tct edo nnulla BASED ON LONO-TER 1 PANELS RD:0VED JA*.TARY,1976 I!! ROUGH !!OVDtBER, 1980, WITil THE EXCEPTION OF PANELS R12tOVED IN APRIL MAY OR JUNE l Sum of Mean Significance Sum of Mean Significance I Source of Variation Squares DF Squaren F of F Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F j A) /.LL PANELS (823 Cases) MAIN EFFECTS 260.856 10 26.086 20.911 0.001 !!AIN EFFECTS 792.309 31 25.558 46.809 0.001 l l Season 21.784 2 10.892 8.731 0.001 Month 44.913 8 5.614 10.282 0.001 1 Region 223.731 4 55.933 44.837 0.001 Staticn 731.656 19 38.508 70.527 0.001 I l Yzar 16.626 4 % 157 3.332 0.001 Year 19.494 4 4.873 8.925 0.001 J l l 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 61.551 32 1.923 1.542 0.029 3.522 0.001 Season / Region 37.656 8 4.707 3.773 0.001 8.621 0.001 Season / Year 10.361 8 1.295 1.038 0.405 2.372 0.015 Region / Year 12.427 16 0.777 0.623 0.867 1.423 0.120 3-WAY INTERACTIONS Season / Region / Year 10.025 32 0.313 0.251 0.999 0.573 0.974 EXPlalNED 327.882 74 4.431 3.552 0.001 EXPLAINED 863.885 95 [ l RESIDUAL
~
933.105 748 1.247 RESIDUAL 397.103 727 0.546 TOTAL 1700.988 822 1.534 n) FXCLUDINO LESS-Tlt\N-6-MO. NTH-PANELS (755 Cases) MAIN EFFECTS 203.384 10 20.338 16.294 0.001 MAIN EFFECTS 729.326 31 23.527 43.975 0.001 Season 14.550 2 7.275 5.828 0.003 Month 38.509 8 4.814 8.998 0.001 Region 166.964 4 41.741 33.441 0.001 Station 674.972 19 35.525 66.401 0.001 Year 17.717 4 4.429 3.548 0.007 Year 18.742 4 4.686 8.759 0.001 2-WAY INTFRACTIONS 52.721 32 1.648 1.320 0.114 3.080 0.001 Season / Region 24.144 8 3.043 2.438 0.013 5.688 0.001 Stason/ Year 12.965 8 1.621 1.298 0.241 3.0 30 0.003 Region / Year 13.223 16 0.826 0.662 0.832 1.544 0.080 3-WAY INTERACTIONS Sasson/ Region / Year 16.497 32 0.516 0.413 0.99R 0.964 0.520 DPLAINED 302.523 74 4.088 3.275 0.001 EXPLAINED 798.544 95 RESIDUAL 848.781 680 1.248 RESIDUAL 352.759 659 0.535 TOTAL 1151.303 754 1.527
( R - R R f~~ 3 _ n n n n R o o n o o o Im r- T O n TABLE A-23. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRESENCE / ABSENCE OF Terei. raulis BASED ON 1hNC-TERM PANELS REMOVED JANUARY,1976 T10(OUGil N0VDIEER,1980, WITit Tile EXCEPTION OF PANLJ RD10VED IN APRIL, MAY OR JUNE . Sum of Mean Sagnificance Sum of Mean Significance Squares F of F Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F Snurce of Variatinn S<tuares DF I l A) ALL PANELS- (823 Cases) 0.001 0.001 MAIN EFFECTS 55.911 31 1.804 18.792 MAIN EFFECTS 16.579 10 1.658 11.518 0.001 7.977 0.001 Honth 8.457 8 1.057 11.010 Season 2.196 2 1.148 0.001 16.771 0.001 41.763 19 2.198 22.896 , Region 9.656 4 2.414 Station 0.001 ' 8.259 0.001 Year 6.208 4 1.552 16.167 Year 4.755 4 1.189 0.003 2.792 0.091 l 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 8.563 32 0.268 1.859 0.001 l l 0.313 2.175 0.027 3.260 l Seasontheglen 2.504 8 5.375 0.001 i Season / Year 4.131 8 0.516 3.587 0.001 0.647 1.250 0.220 l Region / Year 1.921 16 0.120 0.8 34 j 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 1.115 0.302 ' Season / Region / Year 3.420 32 0.107 0.743 0.849 30.122 74 0.407 2.828 0.001 EXPLAINED 67.894 95 EXP!AINED RESIDUAL 107.667 748 0.144 RESIDUAL 69.895 727 0.096 .g N TOTAL 137.789 822 0.168 B) EXCLUDING LESS-THAN-6-MONTH-PANELS (755 Cases) 0.001 MAIN EFFECTS 52.236 31 1.685 16.683 0.001 MAIN EFFECTS 13.652 10 1.365 9.07J 0.001 0.744 4.940 0.007 Honth 7.715 8 0.964 9.545 Season 1.487 2 20.465 0.001 4 1.879 12.482 0.001 Station 39.271 19 2.067 Region 7.515 1.385 13.713 0.001 4.233 4 1.058 7.030 0.001 Year 5.539 4 1*+a r 1.707 0.010 2.544 0.001 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 8.224 32 0.257 0.009 0.2o0 1.726 0.089 2.574 Season / Region 2.078 8 0.001 3.463 0.001 5.158 Season / Year 4.170 8 0.521 0.270 0.122 0.810 0.675 1.208 Region / Year 1.950 16 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 1.030 0.440 Season / Region / Year 3.325 32 0.104 0.690 0.901 27.712 74 0.374 2.488 0.001 EXPLAINED 63.785 95 EXPIAINED 0.151 RESIDUAL 66.276 659 0.101 RESIDUAL 102.348 680- . TOTAL 130.061 754 0.172
A-43 on presence / absence). Results are given both including and excluding those panels exposed for less than the standard 6-month period. It can be seen that the differences between the two calculaticns are minor,. and that both the situ and the ordering of the F-ratios remain the same in virtually all cases. This suggests that including these 68 cases does not change any inferences about main effects or interactions in any meaningful way. Further discussion and analyses are based on data which includes these 68 cases. The results of the ANOVAs, based both on presence / absence and
.bundance, indicate that month, station and year main effects are all highly significant, with station effects appearing the strongest (based on mean -
square values). The two factor interactions are generalif weaker than the I main effects. Based on the abundance data (Table A-22), the season by region interaction is the strongest, indicating that station differences may vary with season. The region by year interaction is much weaker, suggest-ing that the year-to-year variation of station effects is not as pronounced
- as the season-to-season variation. The season by year interaction is statistically significant but is much smaller than the season by region interaction. The three factor interaction is essentially nonexistent.
Similar results are obtained based on presence / absence analysis. The season by year interaction may be artificially enhanced due to the way the data were grouped. Seasons (months) were grouped on a calendar year basis, but the abundances of T. navalis in the winter months of a given year are actually related to the abundances in the summer and fall of the previous calendar year. If the data were grouped so that a " year" was defined as July, Year A through March, Year B (as is donc elsewhere in this report), this season by year interaction would possibly be eliminated. , Formal multiple comparison procedures were carried out based on the results of the ANOVA calculations of loge (1 + abundance). The Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range test was carried out at the a = 0.05 level. L This. test, performed on station averages (averaged over months and years), resulted in the following groupings (a line drawn under the stations indi-cates that these averages were not significantly different): l L
[ A-44 16 6 5 13 12 4 10 8 1 4A 9 10A 7 10B 14 15 17 2 11 1 This supports the original obser ation that T. navalis abundances are higher at Stations 1 and 17, ne r the inlet to the bay, and also at Station 2, the most southerly of our study sites. The dominance of T. ncvalis at Station 11, on the western side of the bay where Bankia gouldi is tra-( ditionally dominant, is not completely understood. This station is at the mouth of Forked River (Figure A-1), where it is influenced both by { bay water and potentially by water recirculating from the discharge canal. Stations in Oyster Creek (Stations 5, 6, 7, 8) do not appear to differ in the abundance of T. navalis from the majority of stations on the western side of Barnegat Bay. Analysis of the monthly variati~n in T. navalia abundances shows that the end of the winter (March) and beginning of the summer (July) are low, and fall and early winter months generally have highet abundances. The following groupings were obtained when 1979 and 1980 were considered together: Jul Mar Auc Dec Jan Nov Feb Sep Oct When 1976, 1977, and 1978 were considered as a unit, the follow- { ing grouping was obtained: { Jul Auc Mar Sep Feb Oct Dec Nov Jan One difference noted in the two subsets of years tested is that the winter ( month (January) is higher than the fall month (October) in [1976,1977, 1978] and this order is reversed in [1979, 1980]. h T. na elia occurs in highest numbers at Station 1, and is also dominant at Station L7. These two stations, along with Station 16, form { Region 3. When abundances in Region 3 were compared on a monthly basis (averaged over years), the following result was obtained: { Jul Auc Mar Sep Feb Oct Dec Jan Nov This is essentially the same pattern seen for monthly averages over all { stations, presented above. This pattern reflects the trend to higher abundances as the breeding season progresses and the decline in the late winter months. {
I 1 l I A-45 1 Analysis of year-to-year effects, which were the least signifi-cant of the three main effects tested, showed no differences between years in T. navalis abundances at Region 1 stations (5, 6, 7, 8): 77 78 79 76 80 P I There are not many individuals recorded in Region 1,and apparently all years are similar. For all other stations considered together, the follow-ing groupings resulted: 78 77 80 76 79 When only the summer and fall seasons are considered for all stations, 1979 is seen to be different: These results help to quantify the variable abundances seen from year to year and suggest that alt.ough abundances in 1980 were generally low, this past year was not that u.asual when considered in relc'. ion to 1976-1979. Bankia gouldi. Bankia gouldi was present at 14 stations between December, 1979 and March, 1980, and at 12 stations between August and November. It continues to be dominant at most of the stations on the western side of the bay, particularly in the north (Table A-21).
'the results of the analysis of variance of Bankia gouldi are given in Table A-24 (based on loge [1 + abundance] and Table A-25 (based on presence / absence). Results are given both including and excluding those panels exposed for less than the standard 6-month period. As was the case with the analysis of Teredo navalio data, there is no reordering of effects or significance levels between the two sets of calculations. There-fore, all further discussions and analyses are based on the data set which I includes the less-than-6-month panels.
I All three main effects, month, station and year, are highly significant. The strongest main effect based on abundance (Table A-24) is the station effect, followed closely by the month effect. This is
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E l I I U U b TABLE A-24. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF l>Ec (1 + AP,l'NDANCE) OFilmkia gouleli, BASED ON LONG-TER?! PANELS RD10VED JANUARY,1976 TliROUG11 NOVDIBER, 1980, WITil Tile EXCEPTION OF PANELS RD10VED IN APRIL, MAY OR JUNE l l Sum of Mean Significa Sum of 1:ean Significance Source of Varintion Squares DF Square F of F Sourc e of Variation Squares DF Square F of F A) ALL PANFLS (823 Cases) MAIN EFFECTS 199.038 10 19.904 23.151 0.001 t:AIN EFFECTS 501.523 31 16.178 33.102 0.001 29.018 0.001 Season 24.463 2 12.234 14.230 0.001 11onth 113.457 8 14.132 Region 147.376 4 36.844 42.855 0.001 Station 355.241 19 18.697 33.256 0.001 Year 25.185 4 6.296 7.324 0.001 Year 31.861 4 7.965 16.297 0.031 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 69.324 32 2.166 2.520 0.001 4.429 0.001 Season / Region 19.234 8 2.404 2.791 0.005 4.916 0.001 Season / Year 17.061 8 2.133 2.481 0.012 4.362 0.001 Region / Year 31.384 16 1.962 2.282 0.003 4.012 0.001 3-WAY INTERACTIONS Season / Region / Year 18.219 32 0.569 0.662 0.925 1.164 , 0.240 EXPLAINED 301.285 74 4.071 4.736 0.001 EXPLAINED 589.066 95 g RESIDUAL 643.087 748 0.860 RESIDUAL 355.306 727 0.439
- TOTAL 944.372 822 1.149 B) EXCLUDINO LESS-THAN b-MO N fil-PANELS (755 Cases)
MAIN EFFECTS 163.063 10 16.306 18.572 0.001 MAIN EFFECTS 481.525 31 15.533 32.093 0.001 Season 21.560 2 10.780 12.278 0.001 Month 109.203 8 13.650 28.202 0.001 Region 114.182 4 28.540 32.506 0.001 Station 339.401 19 17.863 36.907 0.001 Year 24.637 4 6.159 7.015 0.001 Year 30.968 4 7.742 15.996 0.001 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 75.220 32 2.351 2.677 0.001 4.857 0.001 Season / Region 20.419 8 2.552 2.907 0.003 5.273 0.001 Season / Year 23.088 8 2.886 3.287 0.001 5.963 0.001 Region / Year 29.330 16 1.833 2.088 0.008 3.787 0.001 3-WAY INTERACTIONS Season / Region / Year 21.273 32 0.665 0.757 0.832 1.374 0.110 EXPLAINED 299.747 74 4.051 4.613 0.001 EXPLAINED 578.018 95 RESIDUAL 597.038 680 0.878 RESIDUAL 318.767 659 0.484 TOTAL 896.785 754 1.189 _ i
E _ . _ _ . . . _ _E _ _ _ _ _E. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _E_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _E i TABLE A-25. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRESENCE / ABSENCE OF bankia gcaldi BASED ON LONG-TEFli PANELS RC10VED JANUARY, 1976 TilROUC11 NovetSER, 1980, WITil Tile EXCEPTION OF PANELS RC10VED IN APRIL, ttAY OR JUNE l l l Sum of lean Significance Sum of Pican SIF nificance l Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F A) ALL PANELS (823 Cases) MAIN EFFECTS 36.933 10 3.693 20.151 0.001 ?!AIN EFFECTS 86.147 31 2.779 12.402 0.001 Season 6.666 2 3.333 18.165 0.001 rienth 30.831 8 3.854 31.081 0.001 Region 25.476 4 6.369 34.750 0. L Station 49.547 19 2.608 21.032 0.001 Year 4.368 4 1.092 5.959 0.001 Year 6.189 4 1.547 12.476 0.001 ! 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 11.584 32 0.362 1.975 0.001 2.919 0.001 Season / Region 2.359 8 0.295 1.609 0.118 2.379 0.015 Season / Year 3.164 8 0.395 2.158 0.029 3.185 0.001 Region / Year 5.985 16 0.374 2.041 0.009 3.016 0.001 3-WAY INTERACTION 1.306 0.117 Season / Region / Year 5.172 32 0.162 0.882 0.657 p EXPLAINED 55.890 74 0.755 4.121 0.001 EXPLAINED 102.903 95 1, RESIDUAL - 137.094 748 0.183 RESIDUAL 90.081 727 0.124 TOTAL J92.984 822 0.235 B) EXCLUDING-LESS-TilAN-6-!!0STil PANELS ! MAIN EFFECTS 29.969 10 2.997 16.610 0.001 MAIN EFFECTS 80.861 31 2.608 22.102 0.0ul Season 6.738 2 3.369 18.672 0.001 Month 29.763 8 3.720 31.525 0.001 Region 18.452 4 4.613 25.567 0.001 Station 44.984 19 2.368 20.06h 0.001 Year 4.550 4 1.137 6.304 0.001 Year 6.128 4 1.532 12.983 0.001 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 13.690 32 0.428 2.371 0.001 3.627 0.001 Season / Region 2.726 8 0.341 1.888 0.059 2.890 0.005 Season / Year 4.795 8 0.599 3.322 0.001 5.076 0.001 , Region / Year 5.770 16 0.361 1.999 0.011 3.059 0.001 ! 3-WAY INTERACTION! I Season / Region / Year 5.581 32 0.174 0.967 0.521 1.47% 0.046 EXPLAINED 55.209 74 0.746 4.135 0.001 EXPLAINED 100.132 95 RESIDUAL 122.693 680 0.180 RESIDUAL 77.770 659 0.118 TOTAL 177.902 754 0.236
L l L l r A-48 l reversed when the data are analyzed on a presence-absence basis (Table A-25), { where the month effect is the strongest. In both cases, the year ef fect is much weaker than either station or month. In all calculations, the two-way inter-i actions are also significant, and approximately equal, although much weaker than the main effects. As discussed above for T. navalis, the season by year effect may have been enhanced by the manner in which the data were L grouped. Formal multiple compar'. son procedures were carried cut based on the results of the ANOVA calculatioas of logg (1 + abundance). The Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range test was carried out at the a = 0.05 level. This test, performed on station averages (averaged over months and years) resulted in the following groupings (a line drawn under the stations indicates that ( these averages were not significantly dif ferent): 16 9 17 1 1 4 6 10 15 4A 8 7 10B 5 4 12 10A 13 14 11 Station 11 appears unique and differs significantly from all other stations. Stations in the next two subsets, 13 and 14, and 12 and 10A, are to the north of the OCNGS; this subgrouping quantifies the con-clusion drawn earlier that Bankia gouldi is generally more abundant at stations on the northwest shore of Barnegat Bay. Levels of B. gculdi at { stations in Oyster Creek (Stations 5, 6, 7, 8) are not different from those at other stations throughout the bay. Essentially the same result is obtained when data from only the fall months (October, November, December) are compared: 2 16 1 4 1 6 17 15 10 8 4A 7 4 5 10B 12 10A 14 13 11 In order to examine the month main effect, Bankia abundances averaged over station and year were compared, with the following results: _ Mar Jul Aun Feb Nov Sen Oct Tine Tan Similar results were obtained when abundances in Region 4 (Stations 9, 10, { 10A, 10B, 11) and Region 5 (Stations 12, 13, 14, 15) were examined: Mar Jul Feb Aug Nov Sep Oct Jan Dec
[ A-49 and also when the remaining stations (5, 6, 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 1, 16, and 17) { were considered as a unit: Mar Jul Aug -Feb Nov Sep Oct Dec Jan [ However, subsets were not as distinct for this last grouping of stations. { Results generally correspond to increasing abundances over the breeding season, and a decline over the late winter months. { The year effect was examined by testing abundances averaged over the sur:mer and fall seasons (July through December), with the following results: { fs0 78 77 76 79 These ret,ults are very dif ferent from those obtained for the same calculation ( for Teredo navalis (see page A-44) and suggest that there is a greater difference between years for B. gouldi than for T. navalis. ( When only Region 1 stations (5, 6, 7, 8) are cota .~ered, the following grouping results: 79 78 80 77 76 again indicating more differences between years than was detected for T. navalis. When all other stations (except 5, 6, 7, 8) were considered, results again differed from those obtained for T. navalic: [ 80 78 77 79 76 although the differences were not as great as in the two previous cases. Destruction. Percent destruction of panels was recorded for both short-term (Table A-4) and long-term panels (Tables A-9 through A-17). The average percent destruction to long-term panels over each breeding season (July, Year A tnrough April, Year B) is given in Table A-26. With the exception 'of Station 17, this value was lower for the last season (1980) than for the previous season (1979). Although the 1980 values are only for ( the months of July through November, and may change slightly once the data set is completed, it is obvious that percent destruction recorded to date is notice- { -ably lower at Stations 5, 6, and 7 in Oyster Creek and Stations 10A, 10B, 12, 13, and 14 to the north. Attack was lower also at Stations 1 and 11, but was still fairly high. ,
'^
_______.__________________s___m
L l A-50 l L TABLE A-26. AVERAGE PERCENT DESTRUCTION TO LONG-TERM PANELS OVER BREEDING SEASONS (JULY THROUGli APRIL) I L Breeding Season
- Station 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1 72.7** 61.1 58.8 52.7 60.7 40.2
{ 2- 23.7 0.4 1.1 8.3 19.4 16.4 r 3 15.4 0.1 0.9 0.0 2.7 0.0 l 4 33.0 5.1 1.3 2.5 4.8 0.4 5 67.9 7.2 9.9 21.9 61.1 8.2 L 65.1 3.1 6 0.9 4.7 14.9 0.2 7 2.1** 18.1 36.5 53.0 67.5 4.4 8 3.5** 7.4 2.1 3.3 2.5** 2.0 9 2.3** 1.1 1.4 0.8 4.2 1.6 r 10 23.7 1.6 3.3 0.2 3.9 0.4 L 11 64.5 24.5 43.1 24.7 66.6 47.2 p 12 39.6 15.7 12.4 0.8 35.6 13.4 L 38.2 13 57.2** 24.9 13.7 42.2 2.4 14 56.3 32.4 19 ? 24.3 48.5 2.4 F L 15 15.4 5.1 0.5 0.7 5.6 3.4 16 6.6 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 44.4 8.5 0.8 1.8 3.5 3.6 4A - - 3.1 0.6 8.2 0.0 10A 8.0 49.6 26.8 {- 10B - - - 2.4 14.4 1.6
*1975: July, 1975-April, 1976 1976: July, 1976-April, 1977 p ~1977: July, 1977-April, 1978 L 1978: July, 1978-Apr11,.1979 1979: July, 19 /9-April, 1980 1980: July, 1980-November, 1980 ** = Incomplete data. l - = Panel not exposed, r-L
[ [ _-_ -----
I { A-51 Based on the average values in Table A-26, stations were rnnked in descending order'of amount of attack in Table A-27. Stations 1, 5, l 10A, and 11 continued to rank in the top third of the 20 stations studied. { A graphic representation'of percent destruction to long-term panels at each station is presented in Figure A--5. ( . Analysis of variance calculations were made on transformed per-cent-destruction data, Use of the 2 arcsin Vproportion destruction transf6rmation tends'to make the error variability more nearly constant
.and is used routinely with percentage or proportion data. These calcula-tions were performed both on all data from long-term panels collected since July,1975 -(with the exception of data from panels pulled in April, bby, or June of any year, which are virtually free of borers) and also on the same data set but excluding data from any panel exposed for less than six 'tonths (see page A-ll for a list of the resultant data set).
( The results of these calculations are given in Tablee A-28 and A-29. Table A-28 presents calculations for the larger data set, performed both { . on the full factors of month, station, and year (A) ud on the summary factors season, region,' and year (B). Table A-29 presects calculations for the reduced data set, with results for the full fa'ctors appearing at the right side of the table. In all instances, all effects are signifi-cant, but it con be noted that in the larger data set (Table A-28, Part A) the year effect is the strongest (based on mean square values), followed by month and then by station, while in the reduced data set (Table A-29), h the month effect is stronger than the year effect, with the station effect again the weakest. The reduced data set eliminates 1975 data, 1 { which has'been reported Gs a year in which borer attack was particularly heavy (Richards et al., 1976). However, with or without these data points, station effect remains a third order effect. When the results of using summary factors are compared (Table A-28, Part B; Table A-29), the ordering of effects is similar in both cas'es, with seaso. dominating, followed by year, and region accounting for only a small portion of the variability. [
[ A-52 [ TABLE A-27. RANK OF STATIONS IN DESCENDING ORDER OF TEREDINID ATTACK * [ 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980** ( l 1 1 7 7 11 5 13 11 1 11 1 6 14 7 11 5 10A { 11 11 13 14 1 2 14 7 14 5 10A 12 13 12 12 13 14 5 _z ___ 17 17 5 2 13 7 12 8 10 10A 12 17 ( 4 5 4A 6 2 15 10 4 8 8 6 13 2 15 9 4 10B 14 { 3 6 4 10B 4A 8 2 17 15 9 15 10 3 9 4 10B 16 9 6 12 9 4 8 2 17 15 10 10 ( 9 3 15 4A 17 6 7 16 16 10 3 3 3 8 4A { 16 16 16 [ * = From mean percentages, Table A-26.
** = llalf season.
[ [ i [
l r n yw" _ I
- r 1 N
'O t
l y O 'S 0 8 9 I ' A 1 O
'A n 1 '! !
- j. ' .
., ~
L 'J F 9 7 l - 'D 8 u s 'N I n 7 9 S
'0 1 L
_ ~i fS E N
~
I n 4
'J A A P
n [ ' E R U 7 'A . S O
- 't P n *
'F
'J I
9 7 X E
- )l
~
pY3 n p N 9 O 1 7 i T N O n S
'A M
I 6 ( F 'J n M R E T
] -
- 'A G N
_ 'M n ]
'F 8
O L
~
J F 'J 7 O0 r l
'D 7
- T8 9
N 7 S1
- n. I
. y R n ~
'S
'O 9 1 n
D I R NE p [ o I 5
'A 1
i D1 1
'J t EE l
c RV n_ u EO r TN t
'A s e
Yl l
'I BC D U p I NO
- n. q l
'J F
7 % 7 0%%%% OR I I I l 4 'D - 05050% 6175215 TT C
'N 7 U5 d
s
- - - R7 n Q:. 'S I
616161 T9 S1 _ p 'A 7521 E DY p n l
'J TU NJ L
- n. ]
'A E
C! RO ER I
'M PF 1
~ ~ a ]
- 'F
'J 6
7 . - f -
'D 5 5
, /f 7 A t 'O 9 t 1 E
'S n '-
A ._-
- 'A -
- R U
G
-. 'J -
I F 1 n .
. 2 3
4 a a a a " t t t t 1 S . S S S 1l l;l
lilil i! n _ n Y m , n _
" I 'N O 0
- 8 I
i [ 'J 'S A 1 9 n I
'A 7 1
- 7 'M m M F 0
'J 8
- , D 9 n,
ya 'N 7 - 9 c O 1 I -
'S .
n ( J. . i F bIJ I A IA _ e l L1 - q IM _ _~ IF 9
~
- ^
I J 7 m f 7~ . lI I0 D 87 N 9 1
- +
IS
~
[ l y I A M I r l I , R l A IA ! l k F 87 l t :l IJ 7 RID N 9 7 1 - I0 c gd n I IS n A o I i t IJ c - u c r I t IA s e D , ]
~
l l , k F - 7 % r IJ 7 0%%%% 7 _ - I ID - 050507 6 175215
> N 7 m - lIO 9 1 - -
I' 616161 e
- IS 7521 )
nIA d e l IJ u n i m ] l I A t n o n l _. - ' ik Ii C (
. F 6 IJ 7 m ?
~
~
l l 5
- 5 IN 7 A T- .
l I0 9 1
- E R
^
iIS - U m Em P a l IJ A - G I
- F 5 6 7 8 n a a a a t t t t _
S S S S j ! lll,' _
M M M M M M M M M M M M M l l I l l l l l L Sta. 10 Q I -I I l Il i I I
. _ 1 F _
Sta. 10A J
~1 1 7 F-1
_ JL L_ Sta. 1011 - I- 1 I I J .L J L .L 7 - I 1l L J > d. Sta. 11 0,
] l I I f~ l I
- lJ I J
Sta. 12 g- - g I i Il n Il I l I
'I J 'A ISIGI N D'J I F d'AI IJ'A'S O I I N D IJIi I:13 I III J A Sh'N IDJ I
F!! IAb J A'S'O'N'DI J'l M AI I IJ' A S O'N D J "':! A J A S'O b 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 19 ;0 76 - 100% Destruction 51 - 75% ,
- 26 - 50% .
11 - 25%
- 6 - 10%
q 1 - 5% l'IGURE A-5. (Continued)
1' lill Ilj - i e " m
- r. >i N
\
n - l - 0 i O 8 I l'S 9 IA 1 l m r IA
/
m r 7 l 1M i 0 I 8 s
- , I .
J -
+ ID 79 m
~ s .
'N 9 r
, I l' , '
I I O 1
-- i( .
]s IS d
'~,
IA F I m [ 1IJ r I IA l I M m e
- IF i IJ 97
_' 1ID -8 [;. ' - IN 7 m r n IO 19 p PIS I r IA IJ m r IA
] ] lI d
m
~
[ - IF 8 r lIJ 7
~ - '
I D -7 n
- I IN 7 9 m ] i U1 n
~ _ S r o i RIA I i t
; l IJ c u
e m IA t r s e II D
, I e F 7 %
m - I 0 %% %% r lJ 7- 05050% ID6 m
- y. '
^
;t'
,'- [
IN 7 d O 1 9 175215 616161 7521
)
J r f. T F ' PIA I e u [ IJ n i t n n - ]IA
- o r [!t C
( i
- _ F 6
.. 7 IJ 7- .
l 5 m , i , N' . b5 - r
,a, ar')
u N IO 1 7 9 A E I R S - U d'. m -r r A -
- G I
- - J '
- F 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 m . . . . .
r a
- t. t a a t t a
t a S S S S S I l !
( A-57 TABLE A-28. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TRANSFORMED DESTRUCTION DATA (2 ARCSIN N/ PROPORTION DESTRUCTION) FROM LONG-TERM PANELS, INCLUDING ALL DATA COLLECTED FRO 3 JULY, 1975 ( TilROUGH NOVEMBER,1980, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PANELS PULLED IN THE MONTHS OF APRIL, MAY OR JUNE Sum of Mean Significance Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F A) USING FULL FACTORS MAIN EFFECTS 461.116 32 14.410 35.581 0.001 ( Month 135.081 8 16.865 41.693 0.001 , Station 216.564 19 11.398 28.144 0.001 [ Year 98.237 19.647 48.513 5 0.001 EXPLAINED 461.118 32 14.410 35.581 0.001 RESIDUAL 359.227 887 0.405 (. TOTAL 820.345 919 0,893 B) USING
SUMMARY
FACTORS MAIN EFFECTS 201.864 11 18.351 26.942 0.001 Season 63.427 2 31.714 46.559 0.001 Region 26.083 4 6.521 9.573 0.001 Year 102.185 5 20.437 30.004 0.001 ( EXPLAINED 201.864 31 18.351 26.942 0.001 RESIDUAL 618.480 908 0.681 TOTAL 820.345 919 0.893 [ C l [ [ [ - - _ - - - - - - - -
1 r, r, o o _o oo o o o o o ra na ra ra ra 771 p TABLE A-29 AL\ LYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TRANSFOUtED DESTRUCTION DATA (2 ARCSIN VPROPORTION DESTRUCTION) FROM LONC-TEMt PANELS, EXCLUDING PANELS PULLED IN APRIL, MAY OR JUNE, ALL 1975 DATA AND ANY PANEL EXPOSED FON LESS titan SIX HONDIS
~
Sum of Mean Significa.nce Sua of Mean Significance Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F MAIN EFFECTS 84.648 10 8.465 33.899 0.001 MAIN EFFECT 313.738 31 10.121 32.242 0.001 Season 29.631 2 14.815 24.326 0.001 Month 102.881 8 12.860 '40.967 0.001 Region 17.532 4 4.383 7.197 0.001 Season 173.819 9 9.148 29.142 0.001 Year 38.774 4 9.694 15.917 0.001 Year 40.343 4 10.086 32.130 0.001 f Ln 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 56.569 32 1.768 2.903 0.001 " 5.632 0.001 Season / Region 7.216 8 0.902 1.481 0.160 2.873 0.004 Season / Year 36.079 8 4.510 7.405 0.001 14.367 0.001 Region / Year 12.883 16 0.805 1.322 0.177 2.564 0.002 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 12.069 32 0.377 0.619 0.952 1.201 0.300 Season / Region / Year 12.069 32 0.377 0.619 0.952 1.201 0.300 EXPLAINED 175.104 74 2.366 3.885 0.001 EXPIAINED 192.376 95 RESIDUAL 414.139 680 0.609 RESIDUAL 206.866 659 0.314 TOTAL 589.242 754 0.781 TOTAL 589.242 754
[ A-59 [ Two-way interactions could not be fitted based on the full data set because of missing data points in 1975; however, they were calculated based on summary factors for the reduced data set. All of these inter- { actions were significant, with the season-by-year interaction being the strongest. Region-by-se.tson and region-by-year interactions were much weaker. These calculations are not immediately comparabic to those pre-sented by Richards et al. (1980 Table A-27, page A-59). The main dif- { ferences are that the present calculations use the arcsine transformation, while Richards et al. (1980) based calculations on percent destruction. Secondly, a year effect has been included in the ANOVA presented here, while this was not included by Richards et al. (1980). The year effect appears to be highly significant and its inclusion is thus warranted. Thirdly, the two-way interactions in the present model were fitted using ( summary factors instead of full factors. Significant interactions were detected by our model, while none were detected using a station-by-month model (Richards et al., 1980). { Results presented here suggest that temporal factors outweigh { spatial factors with regard to destruction by woodborers. Destruction to wood panels is caused by all of the species of { borers present, but the contribution of the various species is not difler-entiated for panels where more than one species is present. The per.:ent destruction is equal to the percent of panel filled with Teredinidae and { is not considered to be directly proportional to the number of specimens present. For instance, 300 newly-settled individuals, which are all 1 mm or less in size, might account for only 1-2 percent destruction of a par-ticular panel, while 8 older and much larger Bankia gouldi might have destroyed as much as 80 percent of a panel. Our data set does not include sizes of each individual observed, only a size range per panel, and it seems intuitively obvious that in any attempt to relate destruction to the species present, size as well as abundance must be taken into con-sideration. In previous report, no correlation was found between percent destruction and abundance, nor between percent destruction and any water
[ A-60 quality parameter (Richards et al., 1980, page A-60). In the present { analyses, scatterplots of the logit (proportion destruction) versus the {' loge (1 + abundance, each species) indicated a linear relat.ionship when abundances reached certain levels (loge 12). In order to quantify these relationships, an unweighted least squares regression model was fitted to l the data and solved for the regression coefficient for each species. The [ estimated coefficients are as follows: Unstandardized Standardized { Bo A
-4.95
{ B1 (Terado navalis) 1.15 0.45 = bi 82 (Bankia gouldi) 1.37 0.58 = b2 83 (Teredo spp.) 0.51 0.13 = b3 { 64 (Zeredo bartachi) 0.72
, 0.27 = b4 85 (Teredinidae) 0.19 0.10 = b5
[ The unstandardized coefficients imply that if, for example, loge (1 + Taredo navalis abundance) is increased by 1, then logit (proportion destruction) is increased by 1.15 The standardi::cd coefficients imply that if, for exampic, loge (1 + T. navalis abundance) is increased by 1 ( standard deviation (of loge [1 + T. navalio]), then the logit (prop. destr.) is increased by 0.45 standard deviations of logit (prop. destr.). The relative size ordering of the coefficients reflects the relative size ordering of the species or taxa considered here: Bankia { gouldi has the largest coefficient, implying that B. gouldi do the most destruction per individual. The taxon Teredinidae, which are the smallest specimens, have the smallest coefficients. The "R square" value for this fit was 0.72029, meaning that { this regression analysis explained 72 percent of the variation in the data. Analyses of variance performed on the residuals from the regression fit indicated that main effects of region, season and year, and the two factor [ interactions (region by season, region by year, and seasoa by year) are all significant, with season main effect, year main effect, and the season [ by year interaction being the strongest. [
[ A-6: Approximately 25-33 percer.t of the residual variation is explained by this ANOVA, or 7-9 percent of the original data set. Several additional { parameters, such as size of individuals, are not considered in this model and possibly are quite significant in explaining the observed destruction. Ilowever, abundances appear by far to be a first-order effect in explaining the observed results. Limnoria tripunctata As in previous years, the occurrence of Limnoria tripunctata at { our study sites is limited to Station 1, Barnegat Inlet, and Stations 2, 3, 4, and 4A, all of which are south of Oyster Creek. Table A-30 gives the counts of entrance tunnels and numbers of specimens found in long- and short-term panels from stations at which this species occurred. [ The level of attack, as measured by the average number of tunnels, was similar in this report period to that recorded in previous years at Stations 3 and 4. Ilowever, at Stations 1, 2, and 4A, the mean annual number of tunnels was 3 to 5 times higher than that recorded in previous years ( (Figure A-6). The heaviest attack was at Station 4A, as in previous years (Richards et al., 1960). ( Gravid females were fcund beginning in July, continuing through November, 1980. Juveniles were found from August through November, 1980. [ 1:o Lir:noria were found in creosoted panels from any station. Previous to the loss of the panel at Station 16 in November,1980, no { Lirnoria were present. [ [ ~ [ 4
A-62 1' 3 O o O e # O O O O% c O e O N 4 m4 4 O et *4 4 O +4 O N N* e e4 E % % % % % % % % % % e4 0* O O O e4
- O ** O O 4 C w O O e4 M O
> u **
O 3 L M O N e e4 4 h
/. He O
e e 94 4 og e
- O O% c O O O
- 2 m % O O U O O i o e en A m c0 N s.C3 .J' g e4 e .E. % % %
4 ** n O O O e in 83 cw O N O EPs O O N O O O ad ug c0 en O a) e4 en an [.3 V 3 L h e u OHM < h M e 9. e 5" e O e e O D O% c O O O O *s e m en O en O m g- 4 s.me M N m e M O e4 O => e o.4 o .e. . % % % % % % % % % 5 co O M O m M C ae O O M
% ti y o N en N m en h Q 3 C, M h h h in ta M cps @
e4 M e e O en taJ O% c O O en
** e ne e N N
O en en m e4 U e-e edw E. % N en N e O e4 O en *4 O ev en en O e c4 O N O O O 14 MC 0 en M Q e4 e4 e4 Cs en 3 3 0 =@ O @
*G H M 4 0
- v. .
ff e m O W ON c O O O er. E a c O 6 m h O O cps s.4 e4 0 == e4 ** O e4 O CO O M M W cu @ e4 O N N O O O en O
** C 4 e0 e4 e4 N O V 3 3 L e4 b
M %HM N e4 4 W a
*J in O% C O O 4 m o M 00 O O
M Q o A CP' ed a 4 0 @ e4 O O M s-* @ w % % N
** O a- 4 N W cb @ O ed M M C C cC % @ N
** O O
^ 3 3 L en 4 U *1 H M 6 m e4 F
A e g 0% c
,. ne o e ** E M as ce *4 We O O M O e4 O O O N e4 cb % % % % % % % %
p A
>.c r.
q J L O O 4 o %.4 O O O N e O e4 2* H M N e4 m os n
- b o
a ed
- O% C *4 p
A
@ m 4 be EL 3'** E O ** 0* O O ** O O O *G g .4 O 4 O l c A C 4 cv 4 5 L O
O e4 O e4 0 0 O co e4 o 9 c
'.HM d 4 u
to 4.6 E M sk O% C
% a o 35 ed E c
*d e4 ew O O O O O O O @
=4 3 cu % % N N % %
e4 O
% % b
*L a c c o.
f5 3 C O O O O O O M C 6 O O
- t. % l* in N 44
- N e4 eh
- 5. e h a c
g 76 % C en a e
% eQ 00 M
*,E m-e O O ~ O O C ss 4 e4 e we N % % %
O N O - O O .
% % % % N N 64 C 4 cy m O O O O O co O O O d
6 e4 4 CL ta. :) gU 3 L ~1 N e4 O QHM N u e M & W U e -d Q
&y be 9 O ese U >
e4 C 3 U % om 4 em
>4 u G *9
.4 ha be c W 0 Eb 4 e c & O A O A h O q U & U De U W mM M g be ee ed e4 ta3 oJ
*E . .
ene en.e
.eo C 99
****e k
w M e4 N M 4 4 oN $ P. O O
,e M
M O e e 4 4 4
W A-63 250'> l FIGURE A-6. AVERAGE AiidUAL NIR!llE!! 0F Lir. Tropia g Station 4A TUNNEL.S IN LONG-TEitt (6-l!ONTli) PANELS F FRO:1 1976 TilROUGil 1980. I L E 8 E F I E I ~ E E 200 } - l E E E E E E E E E E E E 130)-- E Ez E E E
=. E
- E I
.e E I
5
'I g I
5 I [ ? I I 5103C-a
~
E E {F E y E E 8 E Station 2 [< E l E [ l
.- J g m- ,,
[ { Station 1 100 - l L _ Station 3
% Starion 4 1 I I l l Year 1976 1977 1973 1979 1980
A-64 Literature Cited Bartsch, Paul. 1908. A new shipworm from the United States. Proc. ( Biol. Soc. Washington, 21(34):211-212. Clapp, W.F. 1923. A new species of Tcredo from Florida. Proc. Bos. Soc. [ Nat. 111s t . , 37(2):37-38.
. 1925. Notes on the stenomorphic form of the shipworm. Trans.
[ Acad. Sci., St. Loais, 25 (5): 81-89, pl. 4-5. Iloagland, K.E., L. Crockett and R. Turner. 1980. Ecological studies of wood-boring bivalves in the vicinity of the Oyster Creek Nuclear { Generating Station. NUREG/CR-1517. 65 pp. Jersey Central Power and Light Company. 1978. Oyster Creek and Forked [ River Nuclear Generating Stations 316(a) and (b) Demonstration. 5 Volumes, including text and Appendices A-F. JCPL Co., Morris-town, New Jersey 07960. [ Menzies, R.J. 1951. A new species of Limnoria (Crustacea: Isopoda) from southern California. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 50(2):86-38.
. 1959. The identification and distribution of the species of Limnoria. In: Ray, D.L., Marine Boring and Fouling Organisms.
Univ. of Wash. Press, Seattle, Wash., pp. 10-33. Miller, R.G. Jr. 1966. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. McGraw Hill Co., Inc. [ Nie., N.ll., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner and D.ll. Bent. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw-Hill Co., Inc. 2nd edition. Purushotham, A. and K. Satyanaroyana Rao. ca. 1971. The First Progress Report of the Committee for the Protection of Timber Against ( Marine Organisms Attack in the Indian Coastal Water for the Period 1953-70. Jour. Timber Development Assoc. (India), Vol. XVII (3):1-74. Richards, B.R., A.E. Rehm, C.I. Belmore, and R.-E. Ilillman. 1976. Woodborer Study Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station. Annual Report for the period June 1, 1975 to May 31, 1976 to Jersey Central [ Power & Light Company. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, William F. Clapp Laboratories, Inc., Duxbury, Mass. Report No. 14729. [ [ [
A-65
. 1978. Wood- l l borer Study Associated with the Oyster Cteck Generating Station.
I Annual Peport for the period June 1,1976 to November 30, 1977 to Jers.cy Central Power & Light Company. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, William F. Clapp Laboratories, Inc., Duxbury, l f Mass. Report No. 14819.
, C.I. Belmore, and R.E. Ilillman. 1979. Woodborer Stut.y Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station. Annual Report
{ for the period December 1, 1977 to November 30, 1978 to Jersey Central Power & Light Company. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, William F. Clapp Laboratories, Inc., Duxbury, Mass. Report No. 14893.
, and N.J. Maciolck. 1980. Wood-borer Study Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station.
Annual Report for the period December, 1978 to November 30, 1979 to Jersey Central Power & Light Company. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, William F. Clapp Laboratories, Inc., Duxbury, Mass. Report No. 14968. Turner, R.D. 1966. A Survey and Illustrated Catalogue of the Teredinidae. Mus of Comp. Zoo. , liarvard Univ. , Cambridge, Mass. 265 pp.
. 1971. Identification of marine wood-boring molluscs. In:
Marine Borers, Fu:.gi and Fouling Organisms of Wood, (Eds.) Organi-zation for economic cooperation and development, Paris. Chapter 1, pp. 17-64.
. 1973. Report on marine borers (Teredinidae) in Oyster Creek, Waretown, New Jersey. Mus. Comp. Zoo., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. First Report, April 3, 1973. 30 pp.
l l l I
[ g . APPENDIX B BORER DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS (I . Table of Contents Page Introduction..................................................... B-1 Ma t e r ia ls a n d Me thod s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2 Re s ul t s and Di s c us s io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5 Co n a d ~ An a ly s i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5 ( H i s t o p a t ho l o gy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-14 L i t e ra t u r e c i t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2 3 [ List of Tables Numbers of Specimens and Stage of Gonad Development [. - Table B-1. of Teredine Borers in Exposure panels at Stations in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey from December, 1979 th ro u gh Novemb e r , 19 8 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6 Table B-2. Monthly Occurrence of Minchinia sp. in Teredo navalis Removed from Exposure Panels at Stations in h Barnegat Bay from December, 1979 through November, 1980................... ............................. B-15 Table B-3. Monthly Occurret . idinchinia sp. in Teredo bartschi Rern. j n Eximosure Panels at Stations in Barnegat Ba, i .; . ce')er,1979 through November, y 1980........, ....................................... B-16 ) ~ Table B-4. Monthly Occurrence of Boveria teredinidi Cysts in Bankia gouldi Removed from Exposure "'nels at {. Stations in Barnegat Bay from December,1979 through November, 1980..............,................ B-20 [.' List of Figures Figure B-1. Incidence of Ninchinia sp. in Teredo navalis From
~
All Exposure Panel Stations Monthly from August 1975 through November 1980................................ B-18 E O
i i 1 I I Table of Contents (continued) i Figure B-2. Incidence of Minchinia sp. in Teredo bartschi from All Exposure Panel Stations Monthly from , August 1975 through November, 1980.................... B-19 Incidence of Boveria teradinidi Encystment in Bankia j I Figure B-3. gouldi from All Exposure Panel Stations in Barnegat Bay Monthly from August 1975 through November 1980.... B-22 .I il: l f lI i 4 il !I i !I i b
[ B-1 [ APPENDIX B BORER DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS Introduction Temperature may be the most important factor in the regulation of reproductive cycles in marine invertebrates (Hedgepeth and Gonor, 1969). For this reason, studies of the reproductive cycles of the teredine borers ( in Barnegat Bay have been an integral part of the program designed to assess the ef fects of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station on wood- l ~ borers in the bay. Alteration of the normal cycles theoretically could occur in one or more ways. Initiation of gonad development could be earlier than e c-pected in thermally-affected areas, resulting in earlier than normal spawn-ing. Given the short time necessary for newly-settled larvae to become sexually mature (Turner, 1966), some could settle and spawn within one season. Should the waters in a given area be warmer than those of the surrounding areas not affected by the thermal plume, the breeding period might be extended well into the fall. The developmental stages of gonads from borers in areas affected by the thermal plume were assessed histologically and compared to stages of gonad development in borers from non-affected areas. Data through November, 1979 did not suggest any major alterations in breeding patterns within the study area. The studies have continued and the data reported here summarize the results of observations made over the entire histological program from August, 1975 through November, 1980. The occurrence of species of protozoans parasitic le the shipworms in the study area have been discussed in previous reports to Jersey Central Power & Light (see e.g., Richards et al., 1980). Because of the of ten extensive tissue damage to the shipworms, it was felt that these parasites could have an effect on the abundance and distribution of the borers in Barnegat Bay, and could help to explain some of the variations in abundance observed during the overall program. For that reason, more extensive obser-vations of the histopathology of the shipworms collected for gonad analysis
E B ' were begun'in January, 1977. The results of these histopatitological studies h will'also be reported on here. { Materials and Methods Teredine borers were removed in the laboratory from exposure panels-( retrieved from Barnegat Bay. Details of the retrieval schedule for standard panels.are given in Appendix A. With the six-month retrieval schedule, there were three months of the year (April through June).when no-borers were re-covered from the panels because the panels were immersed when no larvae were settling. In order to obtain gonad information during those critical spring [ periods, two special panels, retrieved on an annual basis, were installed in May and June of 1976 at each station. This enabled us to obtain some infor- [ mation on-the early spring gonadal patterns. In addition, separate racks were installed at Stations 2, 7, 11, 12, and 17 to provide additional infor- { mation on the parasites of Teredo. The panels on these racks are exposed for a 12 month cycle. (/ During the report period, a number of panels or racks were lost. The 'information pertinent to these lost panels or racks is summarized below: ( April, 1980 - Station 7 - Panel #1 Of regular rack ready to fall off; was removed {. Station 11 - Panel #10 on special rack missing; was due to be removed in April. Station 16 - Regular rack had been pulled and was on dock. (~ May, 1980 - Station 2 - Special rack missing. Station 7 - Panel #11 on special rack missing; Panel #1, missing E. from regular rack in April, was replaced. Station '4 - Dock deteriorated; regular [l rack moved about 15 feet from original location. June, 1980- {' - Station 2 - New special rack in-stalled. { { . - _ -
r B-3 i 1 August, 1980 - Station 10A - moved regular rack 15 feet to deeper water. Upon removal from the exposure panels, the shipworms were placed in one of a variety of fixatives. During the initial portion of the study, when specimens were being shipped to Battelle's Columbus, Ohio, facility for sectioning, they were fixed in Bouin's fixative. Since processing was begun at the Duxbury facility the specimens have been fixed in Zenker's, IIelly's, and most recently, Davidson's fixative. Each of the fixatives is suitable for the original purpose of the study, i.e. gonad analysis. Helly's and Davidson's fixative, however, may be more useful for pathology studies as well as the gonad studies. The specimens were fixed for 24 hours, followed by rinsing with 70 percent denatured ethanol. The gonad-containing portion of each ship-worm was excised, dehydrated further in ethanol, placed in two changes of methylbenozate and cleared in three changes of xylene. They were then embedded I in Paraplast and sectioned at six microns. Since January, 1978 at least two slides of each specimen have been prepared. One slide has been stained in hematoxylin and cosin for gonad analysis; the second slide has been stained with Masson's trichrome or Whipf's polychrome stain and used with the hematoxylin and cosin stained slides for pathological analysis. On occasions when it appears useful to better visualize parasites, slides have been stained with acridine orange, a fluorescent stain, which highlights the various parasites seen in the sections. The slides were examined microscopically to determine the stage of gonad development at the time the specimens were removed from the I water. Because the Teredinidae are bivalve molluscs, the characteristics of gonad development are similar to those of other bivalves and a classifi-cation of developmental stages used by other investigators examining gonads of various bivalves (e.g., Ropes and Stickney, 1965; Ropes, 1968; Holland and Chew, 1974) was suitable. The various phases of gonad development were characterized as follows: I l l I
I 1 l B-4 l Female Gcnads
- 1. Early active phase - Ovogonia occurred at the periphery I and within the alveolar walls; nuclei of ovogonia con-tained basophilic nucleoli. The alveolar walls were {
not completely contracted and lumina were evident in most gonads. l
- 2. Late active phase - Large ovocytes were attached to the alveolar wall and protruded into the alveolar lumen.
I The ovocyte nucleus was large and contained a basophilic nucleolus. , l I
- 3. Ripe phase - The shipworm was considered ripe when the number of ovocytes that had become detached from the alveolar wall and were free in the lumen of the alveolus exceeded the number still attached to the alveolar wall.
- 4. Partially spawned phase - A few ovocytes were still attached to the thickened alveolar wall, and some re-sidual ripe ova remained in the alveolar lumen.
- 5. Spent phase - Alveoli were usually empty of ripe ovo-cytes and those that remained were undergoing cytolysis.
Male Gonads
- 1. Early active phase - Shipworms in the early active phase contained darkly staining spermatogonia in the thickened alveolar wall.
- 2. Late active phase - This phase was characterized by the proliferation and maturation of spermatocytes, most of I which have migrated toward the center of the alveolus. A central lumen was present in the alveolus and occasionally a small number of spermatozoa were present in the lumen.
- 3. Ripe phase - In the ripe phase, the alveolar lumen was crowded with darkly-stained spermatozoa.
I 4. Partially spawned phase - A small number of spermatozoa remained in the alveolar lumen. I 5. Spent phase - Alveoli in the spent phase contained very few or no spermatozoa. Ilermaphroditic gonads were characterized according to the condi-I tions of both the ovocytes and spermatocytes within the various alveoli. The slides were numbered consecutively according to sample number, and gonad conds ton was noted for each sample. The phase designations of I
[L B-5 [J the gonads were correlated with the species and station designations only [. after the gonads-were characterized. This tended to eliminate any possible bias'for station or. season. The slides were also examined for any pathological conditions, including parasites. [L Results and Discussion ( Gonad' Analysis From August, 1975, through November, 1979 a total of 2329 tere- [. dinid borers were examined histologically for gonad condition. This number includes 845 Teredo navalis, 305 T. bartschi, 24 T. furcifera, 53 immature Teredo too small to be identified to species, and 1102 Bankia { gouldi. The data from those observations were reported in the annual re-port to Jersey Central Power & Light Company for the period December 1, 1978 through November 30, 1979 (Richards et al., 1980). From December 1, 1979 through November 30, 1980, an additional 376 T. navalis, 32 T. [- bartschi-and 57.3 3. gouldi were examined. The results of these examina-tions are tabulated in Table B-1. [ In generak no effect of plant operations on gonadal development, except perhaps in the case of an extended breeding season for T. bartschi [ within the discharge canal, has been demonstrated. The reproductive pat-terns of the various species of teredinid borers occurring within the study { area over the period of the report are dh eussed below. Teredo navalia. Teredo navalis occurred at 17 of the 20 stattuns h at which panels were exposed. Ripe gonads were found at Station 17 in Dec-ember, at 9 and 15 in January and at 2 and 17 in April. Partially spawned { gonads were also found at Station 2 in April. This early ripening and spawning by T. navalis in areas not affected by the thermal plume has been observed throughout the study, and is not considered to be related to-power station operations. It is reasonable to conclude that the normal spawning period for T. navalis may be earlier than previously thought. E
r~ L B-6 TABLE B-1. NUMBERS OF SPECIMENS AND STAGE OF CONAD DEVELOPMENT OF TEREDINE BORERS IN EXPOSURE PANELS AT STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BAY, NEW JERSEY FROM DFCEMBER,1979 TilROUGil NOVEMBER,1980 EA = Early Active; LA = Late Active; R = Ripe; PS = Partially Spawned; S = Spent; NG = No Discernable Gonad 1979 1980 [ e Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
~
0ct Nov Station i
% EA 1 1 1 E LA 1 6 11 1 ER 1 5 1 I lS o PS 1 3
6 1 4 3 5 6 8 1 j NG 1 2 2 I a Z EA 7 5 1 4 8 LA 1 8 14 8 5 1 9R I g PS eS 8 1 1 3 3 6 7 4 2 3 2 5 2 3 4 jNG 1 I $ EA L 3 LA I $R e PS
'E S 2 1 I m 8 NG 9 % EA 1 1 I E LA ER Ej PS e S 1 I
1 NG 2 3 g EA 4 M 5 m I a PS I ~ NG 1 I d EA "g u 3 1 2 1 ERPS I SS E NC 1 4 8
[ B-7 ( L TABLE B-1. Continued [ 1979 - 1980 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Station
$ EA 2 2 1
'$ LA 1 In R
[ e PS 4
',4 S 6 b "*
3 EA Y3 LA 1 2 2 ( $R PS
'O S E NG
[ d 4A
;g EA 4 s LA OR D
PS 3S 2 ( ru NG 2 - 3 EA [ '$ LA hRPS 1
'O S
[ E NG A EA [~ ,g '{ LA gn R e Y PS 2 5 ( h ,8 S NG 2
;g EA 3
[ N LA 1 kRPS 1 1 [ - S 1 2 1 m NG 1 1 1 tb [ [ ii
i L E B-8 TABLE B-1. Continued 1979 1980 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Station
*g3 EA
@ LA
@RPS I e S A NG 3 E?
EA o ,p LA
@R I ]E' ,@ S
@ y PS NG 3
2 6 y EA 1 1 LA
&R e PS
, yS g NG m
I
.c EA I y Li
@R PS 1
1 1 I .@ S 2 NG t? 3 1 EA
'O R ee 1 b y PS 1 1 7 I ,8 S NG 1
1 EA 1 I 4 1 3 LA
@R
- PS 1 I 3S
*X NG m
e 1 1 4 2 I I
[: B-9 l {. TABLE B-1. Continued [- 1979 1980 _Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul !.. ; Jcp Oct Nov Station 3 g EA _ mu ER
,g PS 2S g NG 1
[ 8 y EA [ . gR PS
- y S 1 1 r NG 2 1 1 Q ~
g EA 1 g LA
- 2R 1 4 PS 2S a NG 9
q EA 1 1
~
% LA R 1 (PS g
3S g NG 1 [ m
~
q EA 1 2 gM 3 gR 2 PS 1 10 n
, yS 1 2 g NC 1 1 m
m [
r-L B-10 TABLE B-1. Continued 1979 1980 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Station o M EA I S LA 1 ER 1 o PS I TS t,$ NG I c l$ LA EA 5 LOR 1 p Y FS 2 10A I .8S NG 2 3 1 3 I .a EA 2M 1 1 4 UR 1 2 I D* P S 3S 4 4 2 7 2
*E NG 3 3 m
M EA I E LA ER 1 1 o PS I 7a S G NG E, 1
.a EA I +8 T3 LA I" El R 1 !
El $ PS 10B I *S NG . I o EA 3 LA 8x 2 2 1 1
"' P S 4 3 1 1
, hS g NG 1 1 1 m
s B-ll TABLE B-1. Continued 1979 1980 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Station to EA =l 2 2 5 {Mg 9 1 3 mR 1 1 2 5 I q PS gS g NG 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 4 1 11
;g EA 4 11 10 14 1 5 1
~ LA 1 10 7 6R 1 1 4 4 1 I -
PS S g NG 6 2 2 10 7 1 1 1 10 4 3 11
-}*
g EA 1 I gM mR 1 3 1 1 q PS 1 I gS g uG 1 1 1 12 q EA 8 10 5 7 2 7 I 2 s, LA 1 1 6 R 3 5 1 1 6 h, PS 7 4 g I yS m g NG 12 6 10 4 7 5 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 17 5 9 10
;g EA 5 2 1
'g LA 1 5 I gR y PS 1 1
3 13 yS 4 1 1 I m g NG 1 2 1 2 I I I
[ B-12 [ TABLE B-1. Continued { 1979 1980 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May J u.. Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Station [ e
% EA '
~ E LA 2 1 ER 2 2 4% SPS 2 1 1 1 6 14 a EA 9 6 2 1 2 L\ l 5 ( ER 2
** P S 1 ~
3S 6 2 1
$ NC 1 2 2 1 1 8
e ( % EA E LA 1 7 1 1 ER 1 [ 4 9S PS yNG 15 [ 4 EA 2 1 1 s LA
> R 1 (PS
}S z NG 1 1 1 1 2
8 [
% EA 1 1 1 1
[ lg LA 1 5 11 7 3 R 3 5 5 g PS 1 1 4 2
' gS 4 2 1 6 e NG 1 1 1 1 17
[- 4 EA g LA 1
&RPS . 'g S NG
[. _ ii,
[ B-13 [ Within the thermal plume area, no evidence f extended breeding seasons could be discerned for T. navalis. Very few T. navalis are J-lected at the thermally-influenced stations, however, so no definite con - ( clusions can be drawn as to the ef fect of the warm water ef fluent on their reproductive cycles. [ Teredo bortschi. T. bcreschi are found in Barnegat Bay with-in the thermal plume area, and previous reports (e.g., Richards et al., 1980) have discussed the probable ef fect of the plume on the breeding { seasons of this species. { During this report period, T. bartschi was examined from Stations 5, 6, 7,10A and 10B, an increase of one station since the previous annual report. La_e active gonads were seen in specimens collected at Station 10A in February, while ripe gonads were found in specimens at Station 10B in January, Station 10A in February and Station 7 in October. Partially spawned gonads were observed at Stations 5, 6, and 10A in January, and at Station 7 in October and November. No T. bartschi were provided for examination from March through September, 1980. It was reported last year (Richards et al., 1980) that T. barbschi could have been spawning through November at Station 10A, a site that re-ceives some water from the thermal plume due to recirculation. The obser-I vation of late active and ripe gonads in February, 1980 at that site supports the possibility of an extended breeding season for this semi-tropical species although it is not known whether swimming larvae could survive in the colder waters of the Bay should they get outside of an area of thermal addition. Bankia aouldi. Gonad developme..t in B. gouldi was examined in specimens collected from 18 of the 20 stations during the present report period, an increase of two sites over the last report period. No unusual deviations in 1he reproductive cycle in B. gouldi as pre-viously reported (Richards et al. ,1980) were observed over the present report period. The normal pattern for B. gouldi in Barnegat Bay can best be seen at Stations 11 and 12 (Table B-1), where most of the specimens are collected. l
1 l B-14 Early active gonads can be found from January through early spring. Most ( of the specimens with late active gonads were found in May and September while ripe and partially spawned gonads were found primarily in June and July. By October, most of the gonads observed were in the spent phase. The late active gonads in September are probably from specimens which were spawned and set early in the normal breeding season. Histopathology Observations of the incidence of parasitic infections in the borers from Barnegat Bay continued through the current report period. The principal parasites affecting the borers are a species of the proto-zoan genus Ninchinia, which has been found in all species of Teredo col-I lected from Barnegat Bay (Hillman, 1978, 1979a) and a ciliated protozoan, Boveria taradinidi, which is not normally parasitic but which has been shown to infect a substantial number of Bankia gouldi (Hillman, 1979b). Minchinia sp. Ninchinia sp. continued to be present in both I species of Tercds collected during the report period. The monthly occurrence of Minchinia sp. in Teredo navalis at each station is shown ' in Table B-2, and in T. bartschi in Table B-3. Infections in Tcredo navalis occurred at Stations 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10B, 11, 12 and 17, an increase of 4 stations over the previous report period. The heaviest infections continued at Stations 1, 2 and 17 where about 62, 76 and 75 percent respectively of all T. navalis examined were infected (Table B-2). This incidence of infection also represents a con-siderable increase over last year's infection rate. The cyclic pattern of infections continued to be apparent, with incidences increasing throughout the fall and early winter, although the increasing incidence of infection throughout the entire study period tended to obscure this. However, by October and November, 1980, over 90 I percent of all Teredo collected were infected with Ninchinia sp. Although the numbers of Teredo bartschi collected over the pre-sent report period declined, the rate of infection increased, primarily because of the 100 percent infection rate (5 specimens infected out of 5 I I
_3 O U m m m m m m m m m m m Q O_ M TABLE B-2. MONTHLY OCCURRENCE OF !Jinchinia sp. IN Teredo navalis REMOVED FROM EXPOSURE PANELS? AT STATIONS
'IN BARNEGAT BAY-I' ROM DECEMBER,1979 THROUGH . NOVEMBER,1980 1979 1980 8 Stations Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May . J t; n Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total Percent.
1 2/6 5/7 8/12 0/2 9/12 5/8 0/1 0/10 10/11 '11/12 50/81 61.7 l 2 '6/10 15/16 15/19 7/8 7/8. 10/13 2/6 0/6 5/5 5/5 4/4 76/100" 76.0. 3 0/1 -0/1 0/2 4 0/3 , 1/1 1/4 25.0 .. 4A - 0/1 0/2 0/2 ~0/5. :0 3 5 0/1 0/1 0-
]
6 0/3 0/3 'O- . 7 0/1 0/1_ 1/1 3/3 1/1 5/7. 71.4-8 0/1 0/1 '0 -j n \ 1/3 1/1 0/1 2/5' 9 40.0 4 10 0/1 '0/1 -0 10A 0/1 0/1 0 10B 1/1 0/1 0/1 1/3- 33.3 11 2/2 0/4 0/10 0/1 2/2 0/5 0/11 4/16 4/4' 5/63 -17/16 27.9, 12 0/1 0/1 0/4 0/1 0/2 2/2 0/1' 0/1' 2/13 15.4 13 0/1 [0]' 14 0/2 0/2 0/6 0/1 0/1- 0/12 'O 15 0/1 0/7 0/1 0/1 0/10 0. 16 0/0 [0]- 17 2/8 5/6 13/14 6/7 3/8 11/13 1/2 1/1 2/2 8/8 52/69 75.4 14/38 26/45 36/67 .13/22 -10/16 30/42 10/26-
~
Total 2/7 0/21 .11/36' 25/27 29/32 206/379 54.5 Percent 36.8 57.8. ,53.7 59.1 62.5 71.4 38.5 28.6 0 30.6 92.6 90.6
, rm rm r~m rm 1 , rm rm rm rm rm r- t- rm w r-- ..
rm r- _r i TABLE B-3. MONTHLY OCCURRENCE OF Minchinia sp. IN Terado hartachi REMOVED FROM EXPOSURE PANELS AT STATIONS ! IN BARNEGAT BAY FROM DECEMBER, 1979 THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 , 1979 1980 l Stations Dec Jan Feb lbr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total Percent 1 2 I 3 4 i 4A ! 5 0/4 0/4 0 6 0/5 0/5 0 ; i 7 2/2 3/3 5/5 100 l l 8 9 Y = a i 10 10A 0/5 0/3 0/9 0/17 0 1 10B 0/1 0/1 0 11 12 l 13 . l 14 15 16 17 Total 0/5 0/13 0/9 2/2 3/3 5/32 15.6 Percent 0 0 0 100 100
l l B-17 I collected) at Station 7 in October and November. The number of T. bartschi l collected was too few to allow for discussion of trends in infection over the report period. llowever, the fact that all five of the specimens col-lected at Station 7 were infected as compared to none of the 118 collected last year might indicate a forthcoming increase. Figures B-1 and B-2 show the monthly incidence of Minchinia in-fection in Teredo navalis and T. bartschi respectively for the area as a whole from August, 1975 through November, 1980. The numbers of Terado navalis examined since early 1979 rose sharply, reaching a peak in February, 1980. The overal) number o f in-fected specimens increased also but the infection rate remained less than it was early in the study until October and November, 1980, when it rose to over 90 percent. Following the high infection rates of 1975 and 1976, the numbers of T. navalis collected fell of f sharply (see e.g. , Richards et al., 1980). It will be interesting to see whether the overall abundance of T. navalis again declines af ter the high infection rates observed over the later months of 1980. The number ef Terado bartschi collected and examined declined from late 1979 to the point where no specimena were collected from barch through September, 1980. Minchinia infections in T. bartschi were first observed in November, 1976 following which no specimens were available for examination until late 1977, when infection rates were relatively high. For mid-1978 through early 1979 T. bartschi increased, but only one specimen out of over 200 was infected, leading to the speculation that a resistant strain had developed. It is unlikely that Minchinia was responsible for the decline in abundance seen rom mid-1979, however it is possible that the T. bartschi in the effluent area were resistant to Minchinia infections resulting in the sharp increases in abundance
, observed from the summer of 1978 until the fall of 1980.
Boucria encystment in Bankia aouldi. Table B-4 shows the in-cidence of leukocytic encystment by Bankia gouldi of the ciliated pro-tozoan Bovaria taredinidi from Decenber, 1979 through November, 1980. Encystment was observed at only nine of the 18 stations at which B. gouldi
t m m 1 1 O .m m m m m m_ m m m m rm m_ c--u l 70- _. O Total Number of Specimens Examined !_ 60- E Total Number of Spec 4. mens Infected - l l l50-e ,
- ~
l-
- g 40- _
~
o2 30-
- U - , ~
5 20 - l-o ,
,0_
m..L,. ik_ L1.c.a.1 ie i : a i a e i e i i e iii iii 1 i i i e ie ie il : iie ii ii 1 It -- il l i i iiiie i8 8 A S O N DlJ F l! A S O N D J F M A H J J A S O N DlJ Flf A M J J A S O N DlJ F M A li J J A S O N D lJ 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 FIGURE B-1. INCIDENCE OF Minchinia sp. IN Tarado navalis FROIf ALL EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS 110NTIILY FROI! AUGUST 1975 TIIROUGli UOVEIIBER 1980.
- -._ _ .._- . ...__._._-- -- ...-...- -- ... .....~....... ..-- .- .~.-. _. . .-.. ,._ - -.
E E E E E E E i 4 60-50- 0 Tatal Number of Specimens Examined - m E Total Number of Specimens Infected 5
? 40- ~
8
~c 30_ -
?
u
~
] g 20- -
~
x _ i _ 10 - _ l _ - - 0-[ln r, e a E , - U - m1_
, , , , , ,,,,,ygg ,,jjjjgj;; ; i; i;g ggi ; ig l l l 3 i; g i iii ii iii l l t l i A S O N D J F II A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A t1 J J A S O N D J F M A li J J A S O N D J Fl! A li J J A S 0 N 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 FIGURE B-2. INCIDENCE OF Minchinia sp. IN Terado hartschi FROI! ALL EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS 110NTilLY FROM AUGUST 1975 TIIROUGli NOVEllBER 1980.
I I I i I
. TABLE B-4. MONTHLY OCCURRENCE 07 Boveria teredinidi CYSTS IN B2nkia gouldi REMOVED FROM EXPOSURE PANELS AT STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BnY FROM DECEMBER, 1979 THROUCil NOVEMBER, 1980 1979 1980 Stations Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total Percent 1 0/0 -
2 0/2 0/1 0/3 0 3 0/1 0/4 0/1 0/6 0 4 0/6 0/2 1/2 0/2 1/12 8.3 4A 0/4 1/4 1/8 12.5 5 1/3 0/4 0/4 0/2 1/13 7.7 6 0/1 0/1 0 7 0/1 1/2 1/1 0/1 0/4 0/2 2/11 13.2 8 0/3 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/6 0 9 0/1 0/3 0/4 0 ? 10 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/10 0/1 0/14 0 o 10A 0/4 0/4 0/2 0.8 3/10 0/8 3/36 8.3 10B 0/4 0/3 0/3 0/1 0/5 0/1 0/1 0/18 0 11 2/8 2/6 2/13 4/11 1/25 1/26 1/12 0/2 1/14 0/14 2/13 16/144 11.1 12 0/19 0/18 0/14 0/12 1/12 0/16 0/13 0/5 0/1 0/21 1/22 0/21 2/174 1.1 13 1/7 1/8 0/2 0/6 1/5 .0/3 3/31 9.7 14 4/8 0/11 0/8 0/10 0/4 0/1 0/1 4/43 9.3 15 0/J 0/3 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/4 0/11 0 16 0/0 - 17 0/1 0/1 0 Total 7/67 6/68 3/45 5/24 1/12 1/66 2/56 1/17 0/4 1/65 4/57 2/55 33/536 6.2 Percent 10.4 8.8 6.7 20.8 8.3 1.5 3.6 5.9 0 1.5 7.0 3.6
l l
~
B-21 1 i was collected, but it was noted during each month except August of the l study period. The highest monthly incidence was in March when about 21 percent of the 24 specinens examined were found to be infected. The station showing the highest incidence of infection over this period was Station 7, where the rate was about 18 percent. However this per-centage came from two of 11 specimens over the year being infected, and those two were observed early in the year. At Station 11, however, August and October were the only months during which an infected speci-men was not seen except for April when no specimens from that station were available for examination. The overall infection rate for the year at that station was 11 percent (16 infected specimens out of 144 cxamined). It is still not known what factors lead to a lowered resis-tance in the specimens of Bankia gouldi in which encystment occurs. If lowered water quality is a factor, it would appear that there is a prob 3em at Station 11, where cysts are most consistently observed (see also Richards et al., 1980). Recirculation might bring some of the thermal plume to the Station 11 area, and this could be affecting the shipworms at I that site, although what ef fect this raight have on the shipworms is not clear at this time. Figure B-3 shows the monthly incidence of Boveria tcredinidi encystment in Banhia gouldi from all expost..e panel stations throughout I the program. The frequency of occurrence of cysts has increased cince August, 1979 after a prolonged period of the rare occurrence of encyst-ment. As stated previously (Ilillman , 1979b; Richards et al., 1980) penetration of the shipworms' tissues by Bousria is not part of the pro-tozoan's life cycle and can be considered unusual. Whether factors that allow penetration also influence the abundance and distribution of I B. gouldi, or whether the parasite itself might have an ef fect on the numbers of shipworms collected is still not understood. I I I
g p-100- - 90 - - - 80- [] Total Number of Specimens Examined - E Total Number of Specimens Infected
~
70- - -_
$ U g 60- - - _ r -
8 S 50- - t: l y ! _ h
~
40- _ 5
~ _ _
30- - 20- _ r - - 10- - - F I
.E E m__. I. . m aun F1 m I R LDs .I E . . m D. . u _ ,
o .7 I I i l l l l~l i I i 1 iI I iiiI i iI l 1 I i iiI I I I I 1 l 1 1 I I I I I I I i l l 1 1 I I I I I i i ii 1 A S 0 N DlJ F M A S 0 N D J F II A 11 J J A S O N DlJ F !! A !! J J A S O N DlJ F 11 A If J J A S 0 N 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 FIGURE n-3. INCIDENCE OF Bovaria ceredinidi ENCYSTIIENT IN Bankia gouldi FRO:1 ALL EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BAY IIONTilLY FR0il AUGUST 1975 TIIROUGli NOVEIIBER 1980
[ B-23 [ Literature Cited Hedgepeth, J.W. and J.J. Conor. 1969. Aspects of the potential effect of thermal alteration on marine and estuarine benthos. In: Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution. , P. A. Krenkel and F.A. (- Parker, eds. Vanderbilt Univ. Press, Nashville, Tenn., pp. 80-118. Hillman, R.E. 1978. The occurrence of Ninchinia sp. (Haplosporida, { Haplosporidiidae) in species of the molluscan borer, Teredo from Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. J. Invert. Path. 31 pp. 265-266. [.
. 1979a. Occurrence of Minchinia sp. in species of the molluscan borer, Teredo, Mar. Fish. Rev. 14:21-24.
[ . 1979b. Encystment of the ciliate Boveria tersdinidi in the tissues of the molluscan woodborer Bankia gouldi in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. J. Invert. Path. 34:78-83. {- i Holland, D.A. and K.K. Chew. 1974. Reproductive cycles of the Manila j clam (Venerupis ,foponica), from Hood Canal, Washington. Proc. j Natl. Shellf. Assoc. 64:53-58. Richards, B.R., C.I. Belmore, R.E. Hillman and N.J. Maciolek. 1980. (. Woodborer Study Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station. Annual Report to Jersey Central Power & Light Company. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, Uilliam F. Clapp Laboratories,- Inc., Duxbury, Mass. Ropes, J.W. 1968. Reproductive cycle of the surf clam, Spisula solidissima, in offshore New Jersey. Biol. Bull 135:349-365. and A.P. Stickney. 1965. Reproductive cycle of Mya arenaria in New England. Biol. Bull. 128:315-327. [ Turner, R.S. 1966. A Survev and Illustrated Catalogue of the Teredinidae. Museum of Compar. Zool. , Harvard 'Jniversity, Cambridge, Mass. , 265 pp. [. [ [ [ .
l l l t I { APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY l Table of Contents [ Page Introduction.......................................................... C-1 Materials and Methods................................................. C-1 Field............................................................ C-1 Analysis......................................................... C-1 Res ul ts and D is cu s s io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 Temperature...................................................... C-5 Salinity......................................................... C-53 pH............................................................... C-58 D is s o lve d 0xy g en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C- 5 8 Literature Cited...................................................... C-62 List of Tables Tabic C-1. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, December, 1979.....................................................C-6 Table C-2. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, January, - 1980..................................................... C-7 Table C-3. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, February, 1980..................................................... C-8 Tatle C-4. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, March, 1980..................................................... C-9 Table C-5. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, April, 1980..................................................... C-10 Table C-6. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, May, 1980..................................................... C-ll Tabic C-7. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, June, 1980..................................................... C-12 5 , Table C-8. W;ter Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, July, 1980..................................................... C-13 ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . )
l l l List of Tables l (continued) I Page Table C-9. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, August, 1980..................................................... C-14 Table C-10. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, September, 1980.................................................... C-15 Table C-11. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, October, 1980..................................................... C-16 Table C-12. Water Quality at Exposure Panel Stations, November, 1980..................................................... C-17 Table C-13. Exposure Panel Station 1, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-18 Table C-14. Exposure Panel Station 2, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through Novembe_r, 1980.................... C-19 Table C-15. Exposure Panel' Station 3, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-20 Table C-16. Exposure Panel Station 4, Water Quality Data Frem December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-21 Table C-17. Exposure Panel Station 4A, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-22 Table C-18. Exposure Panel Station 5, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-23 Table C-19. Exposure Panel Station 6, Water Quality Data From Decemb er , 19 7 9 through Novemb er, 19 80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-24 Table C-20. Exposure Panel Station 7, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November , 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-25 Table C-21. Exposure Panel Station 8, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-26 Table C-22. Exposure Panel Station 9, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-27 Table C-23. Exposure Panel Station 10, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-28 l
. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
l l l List of Tables (continued) Page l Table C-24. Exposure Panel Station 10A, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-29 Tabic C-25. Exposure Panel Station 10B, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 throug,h November, 1980.................... C-30 l l Table C-26. Exposure Panel Station 11, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-31 ! Table C-27. Exposure Panel Station 12, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-32 Table C-28. Exposure Panel Station 13, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-33 l Table C-29. Exposure Panel Station 14, Water Quality Data From l December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-34 Table C-30. Exposure Panel Station 15, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-35 Table C-31. Exposure Panel Station 16, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-36 I Table C-32. Exposure Panel Station 17, Water Quality Data From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-37 I Table C-33. Minimum, Maximum, Mean and Standard Deviation of Water Quality Values Observed During Each Month at Exposure Panel Stations in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, From December, 1979 through November, 1980.................... C-38 Table C-34. Reported Ice Cover (Inches) at Exposure Panel Stations in Barnegat Bay during the Period December, 1979 through November, 1980................................... C-39 Table C-35. Oyster Creek Cenerating Station: Plant Down Times Since June, 1975......................................... C-40 Table C-36. Temperatures Recorded at Station 8 Compared to Five Other Exposure Panel Stations in Various Regions I of Barnegat Bay.......................................... C-42 Analysis of Variance of Temperatures Recorded at Table C-37. I Exposure Panel Stations in Barnegat Bay From January , 19 76 through November , 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-51 I
? e List of Tables (continued) ~ L Page y Tabic C-38. Analysis of Variance of Salinities Recorded at g Exposure Panel Stations in Barnegat Bay From January, 1976 through November, 1980..................... C-56 I Tabic C-39. Analysis of Variance of pil Recorded a' Exposure ' Panel Stations in Barnegat Bay from January,1976 through November, 1980................................... C-59 F L Tabic C-40. Analysis of Variance of Dissolved Oxygen Levels _, Recorded at Exposure Panel Stations in Barnegac c Bay From January, 1976 through November, 1980............ C-60 1 L List of Figures Figure C-1. Outline of Barnegat Bay Showing Geographical Locations of Exposure Panels....................................... C-2 Figure C-2. Average Annual Temperature at each Exoosure Panel Station in Barnegat Bay. Number of Observations is 12 in 1976, 1978 and 1979; 11 in 1980; and 8 to 12 [ for 1977................................................. C-43 Figure C-3. Difference Between Temperatures Recorded Monthly at Station 8 and Station 2.................................. C-44 I Figure C-4. Difference Between Temperatures Recorded Monthly at Station 8 and Station 9.................................. C-45 Figure C-5. Difference Between Temperatures Recorded Monthly at Station 8 and Station 12................................. C-46 l Figure C-6. Difference Between Temperatures Recorded Monthly at Station 8 and Station 15................................. C-47 Figure C-7. Difference Between Temperatures Recorded Monthly at Station 8 and Station 17.................................C-48 l Figure C-8. Average Annual Temperatures for Stations Grouped in Regions..................................................C-49 Figure C-9. Plot of Average Seasonal Temperatures Avert.ged over Years from 1975 through 1980, For Stations Grouped into Regions. " Average" Lines Correspond to Values f rom Region Averaged over Years and Seasons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-52 1 1 I I
[ List of Figures (continued) r- Page i L Figure C-10. Average Annual Salinities for Stations Grouped into R e g i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C- 5 4 Figure C-11. Average Seasonal Salinities, Averaged over Years from 1975 through 1980, for Stations Grouped into Regions.... C-57 [ _ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ t F m E
4
- g. C-1 L
APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY ( Introduction Several water quality parameters were measured at each of the h exposure panel stations at the time of panel removal and replacement. These values, recorded monthly, are used to document the physio-chemical ( environment in Barnegat Bay at the time of the field collections. This portien of the report includes data collected from December, 1979 through November, 1980, and a synthesis of the data collected since the initiation { of the study in June 1975. [ Materials and Methods Field Water quality measurements were taken monthly by Battelle personnel at the 20 exposure panel stations (Figure C-1). Water tempera-ture, conductivity, pil and dissolved oxygen were measured using a !!ydrolab Model Il B, calibrated prior to each day's use. A new instrument was used beginning in March, 1980. thereby eliminating the problems with mal-functioning pro 5es encountered during the last report period (Richards ( et al.,.1980) and during the first few months of the current report period. Conductivity readings were converted to salinity, and dissolved { oxygen readings were adjusted for ambient temperature / conductivity con-ditions according to the methods given in the Hydrolab manual. ( Analvs_is_ Several descriptive summaries of water quality values were pre- [ pared. Here emphasis is placed on temperature and salinity than on pH and dissolved oxygen because these r trameters are considered to be the more important when considering biological data. { A). The mean value one standard deviation were r calculated for all parameters for cach month L- in this report period. E T
I I MA :ASQl'AN
/
BRIELLE [ I
*4NAS ' POINT
' ^
INTRACOASTAL s WATER 11AY CANAL. htAN10 LOK 1NG , 15 I KETILC CREFK I - o
- SEASIDE ATLA!.* TIC 10 M@
I OCEAN SLOOP CREEK 110LI.Y PARK c,9 M
'I ST0UTS CREEK I , o, 0
10 18
, 10 A
/
SEDGE ISL D , 17 f1 OYSTER I OYSTER CREEK NUCLLAR GENERATING STATION e 7 REEK e
,g i
BARNEGAT INLET I WARETOWN HARNEGAT BEACil CITY
$ PANEL ARRAY '
IN ISLAND h I O ( 2 ) Mitt'S . BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY I Latitude 39' 45.8 N E Longitude 74* 06.0 W 7 l I
~
#9 O
l l , FIGURE C-1, OUTLINE OF BARNEGAT BAY S110 WING GEOGRAPilIC LOCATIONS OF EXPOSURE PANELS
E C-3 B). For temperature and salinity, average values over each 12-month period from January, 1976 [ through November, 1980 were calculated and plotted for each station. ( C). Stations were grouped into regions, and average values of temperature and salinity were calculated and plotted for each year since January, 1976. [ Regions are as follows: Region 1 (near OCGS dis-charge), Stations 5, 6, 7, and 8; Region 2 (south of OCGS), Stations 2, 3, 4, and 4A; Region 3 p (east side of bay), Stations 1,16, and 17; Region L 4 (near north), Stations 9,10,10A,10B, and 11; Region 5 (north of OCGS), Stations 12, 13, 14, and 15. D). The differences in temperature values recorded at Station 8 and at Stations 2, 9, 12, 15, and 17 were calculated and plotted for each month since ( July, 1975. Analyses of variance were carried out on each of the four water ( quality parameters measured. These calculations were based on data collected since January, 1976, and were performed for stations grouped { into regions as given above, and months grouped into seasons (winter = January, February, March; spring = April, May, June; summer = July, August, September; autumn = October, November, December). The program used for this calculation is that given in " Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" (Nie, llull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975). Multiple classification analyses (MCA) were then used to quantify the systematic variations detectea by the analysis of variance [, procedures (Nic et al. ,1975). This output, which is a ciaplay rather than a particular test, provides information about the patterns of effects of each factor, and therefore about the reasons underlying significant effects observed in the analysis of variance calculations. It is appropriate only if the interactions among factors are not practically or statistically signifi-( cant. The MCA output provides the grand mean of all the responses, h " Unadjusted deviations" are deviations from the grand mean of the sample [- t
L r i C-4 g L averages in each level of each factor, not accounting for the effects of ( any of the other factors. " Adjusted for independent deviation" are devi-ations from the grand mean of the effects of each category when the other factors are adjusted for in an additive manner. These adjustments are { made by fitting an additive analysis of variance model in the factors (i.e., main effects only, and not interactions) and estimating the effects of the icvels of each factor from the coefficients in the model. For nearly balanced data, the adjusted and unadjusted deviations should be similar. Bonferroni t-statistic (Miller, 1966) was used to compare means of treatment levels in a pairwise fashion to determine the sources of significant effects that have been observed in analysis of variance tests. ( Bonferroni's procedure is based on the two sample Student t-test with significance levels adjusted to account for simultaneity. [_ Let 51 , 52. , E kbe k sample means based on N 1 , N2 , ...,Nk observations respectively. Let M 1, M 2, f Mk be the corresponding popu-( 1ation means. These sample averages might originate as the average values in k levels of a factor under study. ( Let s2= error SS/crror df denote the error mean square from an analysis of variance, based on P degrees of freedom. ( Suppose we wish to make P pairwise comparisons among 1 M , M2f P.i For example, to test 110 : Mi = Mj i / j = 1, . . . f k we must make k r = -(k-1) pairwise comparisons. [ 2 Il o will be rejected at significance level a if (5-5 1 j }
> t. (y; 1 - a/2r)
[ vt+t ng nj { for any pair i,j,where t G/; 1 - a/r) is the upper a/2r point of the student t. distribution with M d.f. [
r L c c-5 L This procedure leads to the confidence intervals r s-73-t g i P s 1 */2rl s V L,ng + T_._* 1NA - Hj *Yi-I3+t (pp 1 */2r;s V
- p nj i 3 with overall probability 1-a that all r confidence intervals ca;culated are
( correct. The means Mg, Mj are significantly different if the confidence interval does not contain zero. Results and Discussion The water quality values recorded each month at each of the exposure panel stations from December, 1979 through November, 1980, are given in Tables C-1 through C-12. The same values are tabulated by station and presented in Tables C-13 through C-32. Table C-33 gives the monthly minimum, maximum and mean one standard deviation for each parameter mea-sured. Temperature Ice was reported in February and March,1980, and was observed to be both thicker and more prevalent in Februcry than in March (Table C-34). This is the first time since the initiation of the study that i:e was re-h ported at Stations Sor 7. Ice was reported at Station 6 in January and February 1977, but not during 1978 cr 1979. The OCGS was shut down from ( 6 January through mid-July,1980 (Table C-35), which can account for the lower winter temperatures and icing at these stations, which are normally impacted by the thermal discharge from the power plant. The role of icing on mortality of teredinids is not fully understood but severely low temper-
'atures could certainly influence survival.
March,1980 was much colder than March,1979, with an average temperature (across all stations) of 0.6*C, as compared to the March,1979 mean value of 7.9'C (Richards et al1980). Average temperature in April, 1980 was 13*C, which has been established as the lowest temperature at which Terado navalis will spawn (Turner,1973). Temperatures at eight of the 20 stations were still below 13*C in April (Stations 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 17, ( Table C-5), but by May all except Station 1 (Table C-6) had attained or exceeded this minimum temperature. By June, 1980, all stations were well [
[ C-6 [ [ TABLE C-1. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, DECEMBER,1979 [ - Depth 0 2 Date Time in Feet Salinity (0/00) Temp. (*C) pH (Str.tien (mg/1) 1 12/12/79 1010 6.0 23.6 7.3 9.8 8.5 { 2 12/12/79 1030 2.0 21.4 5.7 11.2 - 8.0 3 12/12/79 1107- 3.0 15,2 6.3 11.0 8.1 4 12/12/79 -1120 3.5 19.2 8.0 12.4 8.0 [. 4A 12/12/79 1145 3.5 13.1 7.4 11.6 8.1 5 12/12/79 1207 4.0 18.5 11.7 10.0 7.9 6 12/12/79 1215 4.0 18.5 11.7 10.0 7.9 7 12/12/79 1235 3.0 17.9 13.4 10.9 7.8 8 12/12/79 1333 6.0 20.6 13.5 10.8 8.0 { 9 12/12/79 1347 6.0 21.3 9.5 11.4' 8.1 10 12/12/79 1512 3.0 17.2 8.0 11.2 8.0 10A 12/12/79 1415 3.5 17.2 11.5 10.8 8.1 10s 12/12/79 1425 3.5 16.5 10.0 11.2 8.0 [ 11 12/12/79 1440 4.0 19.9 10.0 13.0 8.1 { 12 12/12/79 1535 3.5 18.5 7.5 12.0 8.1
-13 .12/12/79 1555 3.0 16.5 8.0 12.0 8.0 14 12/12/79 1612 3.0 15.2 7.0 12.2 8.2 15 12/13/79 1430 3.5 13.8 8.3 11.4 8.0 b 4.5 16 12/12/79 -1750 13.1 7.9 11.5 8.1
{ 17 12/12/79 1710 1.5 24.9 8.0 11.0 8.2 [- 4
k C- 7 i TABLE C-2. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, JANUARY,1980 Depth 0 Date . Time in Feet Salinity (0/00) Temp. (*C) 2 pH f_Sttion (mg/1) 1~ 1/8/80 0840 2.0 22.0 1.5 12.5 7.4 2 1/8/80 0920 2.0 18.2 0.5 13.0 7.5 3 1/8/80 ~1010 2.0 22.0 1.0 13.2 8.3 4 1/8/80 1030 3.0 21.3 2.5 13.0 7.8 ( 4A 1/8/80 1115 3.0 19.9 2.5 12.4 7.3 5 1/8/80 1200 4.0 17.2 2.5 12.6 7.6 6 1/8/80 1215 2.0 17.6 2.0 13.1 7.2 7 1/8/80 1225 3.0 17.2 2.5 12.2 7.1 [ 8 1/8/80 1340 3.0' 15.2 2.5 13.4 7.2 [ 9 1/8/80 1408 3.0
- 2.5 14.1 7.2 10 1/8/80 1545 3.0 17.2 3.0 12.4 7.3 b~10A 1/8/80 1525 2.0 21.3 2.5 14.0 7.3 10B 1/8/80 1450 3.0 21.3 2.5 12.8 7.3
[ 11 1/8/80 1505 3.0 17.2 2.5 14.2 7.2 12 1/8/80 1430 2.0 19.2 2.5 15.0 7.2 { 13 1/3/80 1605 3.0 11.8 3.0 12.6 7.0 ( 14 1/8/80 1630 3.0 19.2 3.5 13.0 7.2 15 1/9/80 0750 2.0 19.2 0.5
- 7.4
[ 16 1/9/80 0710 3.0 15.2 1.0 13.5 7.6 17 1/7/80 1600 2.0 20.6 1.0 14.4 8.1 { C - Not taken _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ __._._____a
h& C-8 e TABLE 0-3, WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, FEBRUARY,1980 [ Depth 0 Station .Date Time in Feet Salinity (0/00) Temp. (*C) 2 pH (mR/l) 1 2/6/80 0925 6.0 25.6 -0.2 13.1 8.2 b -2_ 2/6/80 0950 2.0 15.8 1.5 12.0 7.4 3 2/6/80 1030 3.0 13.8 -1.0 14.0 7.7 [ 4 2/6/80 3.5 1115 21.3 -0.5 14.6 7.8 4A 2/6/80 1135 3.5 22.0 15.6 8.1 { -0.5
-5 2/6/80 1205 4.0 8.7 0.0
- 6.7
[ 6 2/6/80 1210 4.0 15.8 -1.0
- 6.8 7 2/6/80 1230 3.0 19.9 0.0 14.2 8.0
[ '8 2/6/80 1245 6.0 19.2 0.0
- 8.2 2/6/80 6.0
{9 1300 19.9 0.1
- 8.1 10 2/6/80 1500 3.0 -4.1 1.0 14.0 7.4
[..10A 2/6/80 1400 3.5 13.8 -0.5 12.2 7.5 10B 2/6/80 1415 3.5 9.2 -1.0
- 8.0
[ 11 2/6/80 1420 4.0 15.8 -1.5
- 8.1 12 2/6/80 1440 3.5 11.8 -0.5 12.4 7.3
-13 -2/6/80 1510 3.0 18.5 1.0 15.4 7.9
[ 14 2/6/80 1515. 3.0 15.8 1.0 15.4 8.0
.- 15 2/6/80 '1600 3.5 20.6 0.0 15.0 8.2
- 16 2/5/80 -1710 4.5 13.8 -0.2 13.0 7.9 17 - 2/5/80. 1415 1.5 19.9 -0.1 12.8 7.6
{ 0 '- Hydrolab malfunctioning .
( C-9 [. . ( TABLE C-4. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, MARCH,1980 Depth 0 Date Time in Feet Salinity (0/00) Temp. ('C) 2 pH [ Statin _ . _ (mg/1) 1 3/4/80 0930 6.0 28.5 0.5 11.1 8.1 2 3/4/80 1005 2.0 21.3 0.0 12.9 7.9 3/4/80 1040 3.0 22.1 11.8 8.1 [3 -0.5 4 3/4/80 1100 3.5 25.6 0.2 11.8 8.1 4A 3/4/80 1125 3.5 26.3 1.0 11.3 7.7 3/4/80 1150 4.0 19.2 0.5 11.4 7.9 [5 6 3/4/80 1200 4.0 20.6 0.5 12.0 8.1 {7 3/4/80 1215 3.0 22.1 0.5 11.9 8.1 8 3/4/80 1230 6.0 20.6 1.0 12.3 8.1 9 3/4/80 1250 6.0 21.3 0.0 12.6 8.2 3/4/80 1508 3.5 20.6 1.0 11.3 8.0 [10 10A 3/4/80 1400 3.5 22.7 1.0 10.4 8.1 3/4/80 1420 3.5 24.2 1.0 11.3 8.5 { 10B 11 3/4/80 1435 4.0 22.1 1.0 12.4 8.1 ( 12 3/4/80 1530 3.5 20.6 2.0 12.1 8.0 13 ~ 3/4/80 1545 3.0 19.2 1.0 12.1 8.1 [ 14 3/4/80 1602 3.0 21.3 1.0 11.8 8.1 3/4/80 1700 3.5 25.6 1.0 11.2 8.3 { 15 16 3/3/80 1615 4.5 17.2 -0.5 11.9 7.6 [ 17 3/3/80 1630 1.5 18.6 -1.0 9.8 7.4
C-10 TABLE C-5. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANIL STATIONS, APRIL,1980 Depth 0 Station Date Time in Feet Salinity (0/00) Temp. ('C) 2 pH (mg/1) _ 1 4/8/80 1030 4.0 25.0 10.0 8.7 8.1 l2 4/0/80 1112 2.0 18.6 13.0 8.2 7.9 3 4/8/80 1130 2.0 13.9 14.0 9.1 7.8 4 4/8/80 1206 2.0 19.2 14.0 9.0 7.9 4A 4/8/80 1220 2.0 17.2 14.0 9.2 7.9 5 4/8/80 1240 1.0 15.2 13.0 9.1 7.8 6 4/8/80 1250 1.0 15.2 12.5 9.3 7.7 7 4/9/80 1130 3.0 15.2 12.5 8.2 7.7 8 4/8/80 0930 3.0 15.2 11.5 9.1 7.8 9 4/8/80 0915 4.0 15.2 11.5 8.5 7.7 10 4/8/80 1520 4.0 15.2 13.5 7.3 7.2 10A 4/8/80 1420 1.0 13.2 14.0 9.0 7.8 10B 4/8/80 1435 3.0 17.9 14.0 9.2 7.8 11 4/8/80 1450 3.0 17.9 14.5 9.9 8.1 12 4/9/80 1245 3.0 16.5 12.5 8.9 7.7 1 13 4/9/80 1310 3.0 1.7 12.5 7.9 7.2 14 4/8/80 1545 3.0 13.2 is.O 9.5 7.9 15 4/8/80 1632 3.0 14.5 13.5 8.4 8.2 16 4/7/80 1815 3.0 11.8 13.0 10.2 8.2 17 4/7/80 1730 1.0 24.2 12.5 10.3 8.3 I I
[ C-11 [ TABLE C-6 WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, MAY,1980 Depth 0 Temp. *C 2 ~ Station Date Time in Feet Salinity-0/00 pH (mg/1) 1 5/9/80 1015 6.0 24.4 12.1 8.2 8.6 2 5/9/80 1045 2.0 17.9 14.9 8.4 8.5 1 3 5/9/80 1130 3.0 18.2 15.4 8.3 8.1 5/9/80 1150 3.5 18.5 15.5 7.3 7.5 l4 4A 5/9/80 1209 3.5 19.9 16.1 8.2 8.2 l5 5/9/80 1225 4.0 14.1 15.6 9.0 8.2 6 5/9/80 1235 4.0 14.5 15.6 8.7 8.2 7 5/9/80 1247 3.0 16.5 15.0 8.9 8.2 8 5/9/80 1255 6.0 18.1 15.2 9.4 8.2 9 5/9/80 1325 6.0 18.2 15.8 8.9 8.2 l10 5/9/80 1600 3.0 17.9 15.9 9.4 8.1 10A 5/9/80 1455 3.5 18.9 17.1 9.9 8.4 10B 5/9/80 1505 3.5 17.5 17.4 9.4 8.4 11 5/9/80 1530 4.0 17.3 16.6 9.9 8.4 12 5/9/80 1620 3.5 15.2 16.5 10.2 8.4 13 5/9/80 1655 3.0 10.4 16.5 9.2 8.2 14 5/9/80 1720 3.0 15.8 16.0 8.5 8.4 15 5/10/80 0915 3.5 13.7 14.5 8.9 7.6 16 5/10/80 0845 4.5 6.1 14.7 9.0 7.6 17 5/8/80 1815 1.5 21.8 14.3 7.7 8.4 I I
- _ - - - - - - - \
[: C-12 ( TABLE C-7.~ WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, JUNE,1980 [ Depth 0
-Date in' Feet Temp. (*C) 2 (Station Time. Salinity (0/00) pH (mg/1) 6/6/80 0920 4.0 29.1 17.9 6.6 7.5
{1
'2 6/6/80 1000 2.0 20.3 21.0 7.4 7.7
[3 6/6/80 1025 2.0 22.1 21.0 7.2 7.6 1 4 6/6/80 1055 2.0 23.6 22.0 7.5 7.6 4A 6/6/80 1106 3.0 23.1 21.6 7.7 7.6 5 6/6/80 1130 3.0 20.1 22.0 7.5 7.5 6 6/6/80 1140 3.0 18.2 21.9 7.7 7.5 [7 6/6/80 1200 3.0 19.9 22.2 7.8 7.6 8 6/6/80 1215 4.0 18.5 21.3 7.7 7.5 9 6/6/80 1235 5.0 19.6 21.6 7.5 7.6 10 6/6/80 1430 4.0 13.3 23.0 8.4 7.5 10A 6/6/80 1340 3.0 20.6 23.1 7.8 7.6 {.10B 6/6/80 1355 3.0 21.3 23.2 8.9 7.7 11 6/6/80 1405 2.0 21.3 23.4 9.0 7.9 12 6/6/80 1450 3.0 19.1 22.9 8.6 7.7 13 6/6/80 1515 3.0 17.6 24.5 8.4 7.6 [ 14 6/6/t.0 3.0 17.6 1535 22.5 8.1 7.7 6/5/80 1520 3.0 20.7 21.8 8.0 7.7 [ 15 16 '6/5/80 1620 3.0 13.7 22.7 8.1 7.5 17 6/5/80 1550 2.0 25.0 24.1 11.9 7.7
[- [: TABLE G-8. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, JULY,1980 [ Depth 0
.St ction Date Time in Feet. Salinity (0/00) Temp. ('C) 2 pH
( (mg/1) 1 7/8/80 1000 3.0 29.8 20.3 5.9 7.5 (' 2 7/8/80 1105 3.0 25.7 20.4 6.2 6.5 3 7/8/80 1130 2.0 24.9 23.2 5.4 7.3 [ 4 7/8/80 1210 3.0 25.8 23.6 5.3 7.3
'4A ' 7/8/80 1230 2.0 26.9 24.5 5.5 7.6
{ 5 7/8/80 1245 3.0 23.2 23.6 6.1 7.4 6 7/8/80 1330 3.0 23.1 24.5 5.7 7.5 7/8/80 3.0 [7 1335 23.5 23.5 7.4 a.; 8 7/8/80 1420 4.0 23.6 23.7 5.0 7.5 7/8/80 1435 4.0 24.4 23.7 6.2 7.6- {9 10 7/8/80 1555 2.0 15.6 25.5 8.2 7.6 (10A 7/8/80 1500 3.0 24.7 24.5 6.6 7.7 10B 7/8/80 1515 2.0 24.7 24.9 6.9 7.7 [ 11 7/8/80 1525 3.0 25.6 24.3 7.1 7.8 12 7/8/80 1615 3.0 22.0 24.7 7.0 7.8 13 7/8/80 1640 4.0 18.1 24.7 7.0 7.7 [14 7/8/80 1700 2.0 20.4 24.0 6.5 7.5 15 7/7/80 1710 2.0 18.5 24.5 6.6 7.5 16 7/8/80 0800 3.0 15.9 22.6 5.0 7.5 17 7/7/80 1900 2.0 28.6 23.3 6.4 7.7 [: 6
~
t r R
-C-14 L.
E TABLE C-9. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS, AUGUST,1980 Depth 0 I. Station. Date Time in Feet Salinity (0/00) Temp. ('C) pH L (mg/1) 1 8/5/80 1210 3.0 30.0 26.5 5.5 7.5 2 8/5/80 -1255 3.0 29.5 29.4 5.6 7.2 ( 3 8/5/80 1412 3.0 26.9 30.3 6.~ 1 7.4 4 8/5/80 1429 3.0 28.3 30.5 8.2 7.7 4A 8/5/80 1440 3.0 28.4 30.7 7.8 7.7 5- 8/5/80 1457 4.0 25.6 30.1 6.5 7.3 b 6 8/5/80 1507 4.0 25.7 29.6 9.6 7.7 {7 8/5/S0 1518 3.0 25.S 30.9 5.8 7.2 8 8/5/80 1540 4.0 25.3 31.5 5.7 7.2 9' 8/5/80 1550 4.0 26.7 29.8 5.8 7.3 8/5/80 1720 3.0 19.6 30.2 8.8 7.5 [1010A 8/5/80. 1622 3.0 25.8 30.3 5.9 7.3 8/5/80 1640 3.0 26.4 29.7 7.3 7.4 {.10B 11 8/5/80 1653 3.0 27.0 29.8 6.9 7.5 12 8/5/80 1736 3.0- 23.9 30.1 7.6 7.5 8/5/80 1810 4.0 19.1 30.2 7.1 7.+ [ ' 1413 8/5/80 1834 3.0 21.4 28.8 6.8 7.5-
- 15. -8/4/80 1620 3.5 17.6 28.7 7.3 7.4 16 8/5/80 1920 4.0 17.8 28.6 5.5 7.0 l 17 8/4/80 1800 2.0 29.6 29.0 7.8 7.7
+s C-15 TABLE C-10. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS SEPTEMBER,1980 - Depth 02 Station Date Time in Feet Salinitv(o/oo) Tempe ra ture (* C) (mg/1) pH 1 9/3/80 0952 6.0 30.9 24.0 5.2 7.1 2 9/3/80 1039 2.0 30.2 25.4 3.8 6.9 3 9/3/80 1102 3.0 28.6 26.7 5.1 7.4 4 9/3/80 1119 3.0 28.0 26.7 5.4 7.5 4A 9/3/80 1131 3.5 28.3 27.2 4.4 7.3 5 9/3/80 1147 4.0 26.2 30.8 5.4 7.2 6 9/3/80 1155 4.0 26.2 31.1 5.5 7.2 I 7 9/3/80 1204 3.0 25.9 31.3 5.2 7.2 8 9/3/80 1220 6.0 26.1 31.3 5.4 7.3 9 9/3/80 1245 6.0 26.4 27.5 6.3 7.4 10 9/3/80 1448 3.0 19.5 28.5 5.3 7.3 l 10A 10B 9/3/80 9/^/80 1340 1354 3.5 3.5 26.7 26.7 28.9 29.4 7.3 8.2 7.7 8.0 11 9/3/80 1403 4.0 26.7 28.7 7.0 7.6 12 9/3/80 1511 3.5 24.8 27.4 6.2 7.5 13 9/3/80 1537 3.0 20.2 28.8 8.0 7.8 I 14 9/3/80 1612 3.0 22.3 27.7 6.2 7.5 15 9/2/80 1645 3.5 19.3 28.1 6.2 7.7 16 9/3/80 1647 4.5 20.2 27.6 7.0 7.7 17 9/3/80 1740 1.5 30.1 27.4 10.6 8.0 I I I I I
[ t .- a M
'C-16 TABLE C-11. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS OCTOBER,1980
[ Depth 0 h- Statio'n Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature ('C) (mg 1) pH l' .10/7/80 0900 3.0 31.9 16.7 6.7 7.6 { 2 10/7/80 0930 2.0 30.7 14.8 5.8 6.8 3 10/7/80 1000 3.0 29.3 15.7 6.6 7.4 [- 4- 10/7/80 1045 3.0 29.1 16.1 6.5 7.5 4A 10/7/80 1058 2.0 29.8 17.4 6.9 7.7 b 5 10/7/80 1110 2.0 27.9 21.7 7.4 7.8 6 10/7/80' 1120 3.0 27,9 21.0 7.4 7.8 ( 7 10/7/8n 1130 3.0 27.9 21.5 7.0 7.7. 8 10/7/80 1145 4.0 28.6 23.0 7.4 7.8 9 10/7/80 1202 3.0 28.9 17.0 7.7 7.8 {. 10 10/7/80 1405 4.0 28.4 18.2 7.4 7.9 10A 10/7/80 1315 2.0 29.2 18.4 7.1 7.9 [. 10B 10/7/80 1335 3.0 29.1 18.1 7.7 7.9 11 10/7/80 1350 3.0 29.0 17.3 8.5 8.0 [ 12 10/7/80 1435 3.0 26.0 17.1 8.9 8.0 13 10/7/80 1500 4.0 27.2 18.0 7.7 7.9 [. 14 10/7/80 1530 3.0 25.8 17.2 7.7 7.8 15 10/6/80 1545 3.0 23.3 17.5 8.7 7.9 16 10/7/80 1600 3.0 20.8 16.8 9.3 8.1 17 10/7/80 1630 2.0 23.0 15.6 11.7 8.3 [ [ [ [ [:
~'
{ [ C-17 TABLE C-12. WATER QUALITY AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS NOVEMBER,1980 [. Depth ( Station Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/oo) Temperature (*C) 02 (mg/1) pil 1 11/6/80 0915 3.0 31.3 10.8 7.4 7.3 2 11/6/80 0945 3.0 29.0 9.0 8.1 7.1 3 11/6/80 1015 2.0 28.4 8.8 8.4 7.3 4 11/6/80 1030 3.0 29.3 9.2 8.1 7.3 4A 11/6/80 1045 3.0 29.3 9.7 8.6 7.3 h 5 11/6/80 1100 3.0 27.8 13.7 8.3 7.2 6 11/6/80 1115 3.0 27.2 12.4 7.7 7.2 7 11/6/80 1130 4.0 27.7 14.1 7.8 7.3 { 8 11/6/80 1140 3.0 27.7 14.1 8.8 7.4 9 11/6/80 1200 3.0 28.1 10.2 8.9 7.5 { 11/6/80 3.0 25.6 10 1345 12.3 8.3 7.1 10A 11/6/80 1220 2.0 28.1 10.5 8.4 7.3 10B 11/6/80 1235 2.5 28.1 10.4 8.3 7.4 11 11/6/80 1245 2.0 28.3 10.3 9.8 7.6 ( 12 11/6/80 1400 2.5 26.2 10.4 8.2 7.2 13 11/6/80 1440 3.0 21.5 10.7 8.9 7.5 14 11/6/80 1500 3.0 25.4 9.5 8.5 7.5 { 15 11/5/80 1510 3.0 22.3 10.2 9.1 7.2 16 11/6/80 1535 3.0 19.8 9.7 9.2 7.7 17 11/6/80 1610 1.0 29.5 9.9 9.9 7.9 [ [ [ [ [ l I i==n m .
[ C-18 [ [ TABLE C-13. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 1, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER,1979 T!!ROUGil NOVEMBER,1980 [ Depth 02 Date Time in Feet Salinity @/co) Temperature (C) (mg/1) pil 12/12/79 1010 6.0 23.6 7.3 9.8 8.5 1/8/80 0840 2.0 22.0 1.5 12.5 7.4 ( 2/6/80 0925 6.0 25.6 -0.2 13.1 8.2 3/4/80 0930 6.0 28.5 0.5 13.6 8.1 4/8/80 1030 4.0 25.0 10.0 10.2 8.1 { 5/9/80 1015 6.0 24.4 12.1 9.6 8.6 6/6/80 0920 4.0 29.1 17.9 6.8 7.5 7/8/80 1000 3.0 29.8 20.3 5,9 7.5 8/5/80 1210 3.0 30.0 26.5 5.5 7.5 9/3/C0 0952 6.0 30.9 24.0 5.2 7.1 10/7/80 0900 3.0 31.9 16.7 6.7 7.6 ( 11/6/80 0915 3.0 31.3 10.8 7.4 7.3
^
[ [ [ [ [ [ [
i L L C-19 r L TABLE C-14. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 2, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 THROUCll NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth . 02_ Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/oo) Temperature (*C) (mg/1) pH { 12/12/79 '1030 2.0 21.4 5.7 11.2 8.0 (. _1/8/80- 0920 2.0 18.2 0.5 13.0 7.5 2/6/80 0950 2.0 15.8 1.5 12.0 7.4 3/4/80 1005 2.0 21.3 0.0 13.8 7.9 {- 4/8/80 1112 2.0 18.6 13.0 9.2 7.9 r 5/9/80 1045 2.0 17.9 14.9 9.4 8.5 L 6/6/80 1000 2.0 20.3 21.0 7.4 7.7 7/8/80 1105 3.0 25.7 20.4 6.2 6.5 8/5/80- ~1255 3.0 29.5 29.4 5.6 7.2 9/3/80 1039 2.0 30.2 25.4 3.8 6.9 10/7/80 0930 2.0 30.7 14.8 5.8 6.8 11/6/80 0945 3.0 29.0 9.0' 8.1 7.1 . [ - [ [ [ [L [ [ C
[- C-20 E TABLE C-15. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 3, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER,1979 TilROUGli NOVEMBER,1980 Depth 0 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/oo) Temperature ( *C) (mg 1) pH 12/12/79 1107 3.0 15.2 6.3 11.0 8.1 [ 1/8/80 2/6/80 1010 1030 2.0 3.0 22.0 13.8 1.0
-1.0 13.2 14.0 8.3 7.7 3/4/80 1040 3.0 22.1 13.8 8.1
{ 4/8/80 1130 2.0 13.9
-0.5 14.0 9.8 7.8 5/9/80 1130 3.0 18.2 15.4 9.3 8.1
[ 6/6/80 1025 2.0 22.1 21.0 7.2 7.6 7/8/80 1130 2.0 24.9 23.2 5.4 7.3 b 8/5/80 1412 3.0 26.9 30.3 6.1 7.4 9/3/80 1102 3.0 28.6 26.7 5.1 7.4 10/7/80 1000 3.0 29.3 15.7 6.6 7.4 11/6/80 1015 2.0 28.4 8.8 8.4 7.3 b [ [
~
i M w
il 4 C-21 i lI l l TABLE C-16. EXPOSURE PA'!FL STATION 4, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 TilROUC1! NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth 02 l Date, Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperat ure ('C ) (mg/1) pl! 1 ll 12/12/79 1/8/80 1120 1030 3.5 3.0 19.2 21.3 8.0 2.S 12.4 13.0 8.0 7.8 2/6/80 1115 3.5 21.3 -0.5 14.6 7.8 3/4/80 1100 3.5 25.6 0.2 14.0 8.1 4/8/80 1206 19.2 14.0 10.0 7.9 jI 2.0 5/9/h0 11 "' 3.5 18.5 15.5 8.2 7.5 i 6/6/80 1055 2.0 23.6 22.9 7.5 7.6 7/8/80 1210 3.0 25.8 23.6 5.3 7.3 { 8/5/80 1429 3.0 28.3 30.5 8.2 7.7 9/3/80 1119 3.0 28.0 26.7 5.4 7.5
- 10/7/80 1045 3.0 29.1 16.1 6.5 7.5 4
l 11/6/80 1030 3.0 29.3 9.2 8.1 7.3 I l 3
- l l
I I I I :
L [ C-22 [- [ TABLE C-17. EXPOSURE PMNL STATION 4A,' WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMP2ER, 1979 THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth . 02 Date~ Time in Feet- Salinity (3/od Temperature (*C ) (mg/1) pH 12/12/79 1145 3.5 13.1 7.4 11.6 8.1
. 1/8/80 1115 3.0 19.9 2.5 12.4 7.3
{ 2/6/80 1135 3.5 22.0 -0.5 15.6 8.1 3/4/80 1125 3.5 26.3 1.0 13.6 7.7 4/8/80 1220 2.0 17.2 14.0 10.2 7.9
- 5/9/80 1209 3.5 19.9 16.1 9.2 8.2 6/6/80 1106 3.0 23.1 21.6 7.7 7.6 7/0/80 1230 2.0 26.9 24.5 5.5 7.6
[ 8/5/80 1440 3.0 28.4 30.7 7.8 7.7
.9/3/80 1131 3.5 28.3 27.2 4.4' 7.3 ~
10/7/80 1058 2.0 29.8 17.4 6.9 7.7 11/6/80 1045 3.0 29.3 9.7 8.6 7.3 b [ [- [ m M wm t
, p I
4 L C-23 I L ( TABLE C-18. EXPOSURS PANEL STATION 5, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 TilROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth 02 Date Tine .in Feet Salinity (o /oo) Temperature (*C) (mg/1) pH 12/12/79 1207 4.0 18.5 11.7 10.0 7.9 1/8/80 1200 4.0 17.2 2.5 12.6 7.6 { 2/6/80 1205 4.0 8.7 0.0
- 6.7 I 3/4/80 1150 4.0 19.2 0.5 13.0 7.9 4/8/80 1240 1.0 15.2 13.0 10.0 7.8 5/9/30 1225 4.0 14.1 15.6 9.9 8.2
( 6/6/80 1130 3.0 20.1 22.0 7.5 7.5 7/8/80 1245 3.0 23.2 23.6 6.1 7.4 ( 8/5/80 1457 4.0 25.6 30.1 6.5 7.3 9/3/80 1147 4.0 26.2 30.8 5.4 7.2 10/7/80 1110 2.0 27.9 21.7 7.4 7.8 { 11/6/80 1100 3.0 27.8 13.7 8.3 7.2 [
- liydrolab malfunctioning.
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ 1
~
L C-24 [. TABLE C-19. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 6, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER,197') TilROUGli NOVEMBER,1980
~
Depth 0 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature (* C ) (mg 1) pH 12/12/79 - 1215 4.0 -18.5 11.7 10.0 7.9 1/8/80 1215 2.0 17.6 2.0 13.1 7.2 2/6/80 1210 4.0 15.8 -1.0
- 6.8 3/4/80 1200 4.0 20.6 0.5 13.8 8.1
[- 4/8/80 1250 1.0 15.2 12.5 10.2 7.7 5/9/80 1235 4.0 14.5 15.6 9.7 8.2 (' 6/6/80 1140 3.0 18.2 21.9 7.7 7.5 7/8/80 1330 3.0 23.1 24.5 5.7 7.5 8/5/80 1507 4.0 25.7 29.6 9.6 ~7.7 { 9/3/80 1155 4.0 26.2 31.1 5.5 7.2 10/7/80 1120 3.0 27.9 21.0 7.4 7.8 g 11/6/80 1115 3.0 27.2 12.4 7.7 7.2 o liydrolab malfunctioning. [ [ [ [ [ [. [i
k C-25 E TABI.E C-20. EXPOSU2E PANEL STATION 7, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 TIIROUGII NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth 02 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature (*C) (mg/1) pil { _ 12/12/79 1235 3.0 17.9 13.4 10.9 7.8 [ 1/8/80 1225 3.0 17.2 2.5 12.2 7.1 2/6/80 1230 3.0 19.9 0.0 14.2 8.0 3/4/80 1215 3.0 22.1 0.5 13.8 8.1 4/9/80 1130 3.0 15.2 12.5 9.0 7.7 5/9/80 1247 3.0 16.5 15.0 9.9 8.2 6/6/80 1200 3.0 19.9 22.2 7.8 7.6 7/8/80 1335 3.0 23.5 23.5 5.2 7.4 [ 8/5/80 1518 3.0 25.8 30.9 5.8 7.2 9/3/80 1204 3.0 25.9 31.3 5.2 7.2 [ 10/7/80 11/6/80 1130 1130 3.0 4.0 27.9 27.7 21.5 14 1 7.0 7.8 7.7 7.3 [ [ [ [ [ m E 4 e
[ C-26 [ TABLE C-21. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 8, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER,1979 TilROUGH NOVEMBER,1980 Depth 02 Date Time in Feet Salinity (c/oo) Tempe rature (* C ) (mg/1) pH 12/12/79 1333 6.0 20.6 13.5 10.8 8.0 1/8/80 1340 3.0 15.2 2.5 13.4 7.2 { 2/6/80 1245 6.0 19.2 0.0
- 8.2 3/4/80 1230 6.0 20.6 1.0 14.2 8.1
[ 4/8/80 0930 3.0 15.2 11.5 10.0 7.8 5/9/80 1255 6.0 18.1 15.2 10.4 8.2 b 6/6/80 1215 4.0 18.5 21.3 7.7 7.5 7/8/80 1420 4.0 23.6 23.7 5.0 7.5 ( 8/5/80 1540 4.0 25.3 31.5 5.7 7.2 9/3/80 1220 6.0 26.1 31.3 5.4 7.3 10/7/80 1145 4.0 28.6 23.0 7.4 7.8 { 11/6/80 1140 3.0 27.7 14.1 8.8 7.4 0 liydrolab malfunctioning. [ [ [ [ [ [ [ t I 1
C-27 [: TABLE C-22 . ' EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 9, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth 0 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/oo) Temperature ('C) (mg 1) pH 12/12/79' 1347 6.0 21.3 .9.5 11.4 8.1
- 1/8/80 1408. 3.0
- 2.5 14.1 7.2
{ 2/6/80. 1300 6.0 '19.9 0.1 ** 8.1 3/4/80 1250 6.0 21.3 0.0 14.6- 8.2 4/8/80 0915 4.0 15.2 11.5 9.8 7.7 5/9/80 1325 6.0 18.2 15.8 9.9 8.2 6/6/80 1235 5.0 19.6' 21.6 7.5 7.6 7/8/80 1435' 4.0 24.4 23.7 6.2 7.6 [ 8/5/80 1550 4.0 26.7 29.8 5.8 7.3 9/3/80 1245 6.0 26.4 27.5 6.3 7.4 10/7/80- 1202 3.0 28.9 17.0 7.7 7.8 { 11/6/80. 1200 3.0 28.1 10.2 8.9 7.5 {
- Not taken.
** Hydrolab malfunctioning.
[ [- [- g g 9 [L 1 4
t
?
C-28 i g' TABLE C-23. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 10,' WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 I h Depth 02
- - -Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/oc) Temperature (C) (mg/1) pH 12/12/79 1512 3.0- 17.2 8.0 11.2 8.0 1/8/80 1545.' 3.0 17.2 . 3.0 12.4 7.3 2/6/80- 1500 3.0 4.1 1.0 14.0- 7.4 3/4/80- 1508 3.5 20.6 1.0 13.1 8.0 bi 4/8/80 1520 4.0 15.2- 13.5 8.0 7.2 5/9/80' 1600 3.0 17.9- 15.9 10.4 8.1
(- 6/6/80 1430 4.0 13.3 23.0 8.4 7.5
-7/8/80- 1555 2.0 15.6 25.5 8.2 7.6 8/5/80- 1720- 3.0 19.6 30.2 8.8 7.5
{ 9/3/80 1448 3.0 19.5 28.5 5.3 7.3 10/7/80 1405 4.0 28.4 18.2 7.4 7.9 11/6/80 1345 3.0 25.6 12.3 8.3 7.1 [L [ [' I [ [: E E
[ C-29
)
[ TABLE C-24. EXPOSURL' PANEL STATION 10A, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER,1979 TilROUGli NOVEMBER,1980 Depth 02 { cate Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Tempe rat ure (* C) (mg/1) pil 12/12/79 1415 3.5 17.2 11.5 10.8 8.1 1/8/80 1525 2.0 21.3 2.5 14.0 7.3 [ 2/6/80 1400 3.5 13.8 -0.5 12.2 7.5 3/4/80 3.5 12.2 8.1
~
1400 22.7 1.0 4/8/80 1420 1.0 13.2 14.0 10.0 7.8 5/9/30 1455 3.5 18.9 17.1 10.9 8.4 6/6/80 1340 3.0 20.6 23.1 7.8 7.6 7/8/80 1500 3.0 24.7 24.5 6.6 7.7 8/5/80 1622 3.0 25.8 30.3 5.9 7.3 9/3/80 1340 3.5 26.7 28.9 7.1 7.7 l 10/7/80 1315 2.0 29.2 18.4 7.1 7.9 11/6/80 1220 2.0 28.1 10.5 8.4 7.3 L I I I l I
e L C-30 TABLE C-21. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 10B, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM l DECEMBER, 1979 TilROUGil NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth 02 Date Time in Feet Salinity (a/co) Tempe ra ture (* C) (mg/1) pil 12/12/79 1425 3.5 16.5 10.0 11.2 8.0 1/8/80 1450 3.0 21.3 2.5 12.8 7.3 2/6/80 1415 3.5 9.2 -1.0
- 8.0 3/4/80 1420' 3.5 24.2 1.0 13.4 8.5 4/8/80 1435 3.0 17.9 14.0 10.2 7.8 I 5/9/80 1505 3.5 17.5 17.4 10.4 8.4 6/6/39 1355 3.0 21.3 23.2 8.9 7.7 7/8/80 1515 2.0 24.7 24.9 6.9 7.7 8/5/80 1640 3.0 26.4 29.7 7.3 7.4 9/3/80 1354 3.5 26.7 29.4 8.2 8.0 10/7/80 1335 3.0 29.1 18.1 7.7 7.9 11/6/80 1235 2.5 28.1 10.4 8.3 7.4
- Hydrolab malfunctioning.
I I I I I I
[ C-31 TABLE C-26 EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 11, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM l DECEt!BER, 1979 TIIROUGli NOVEMBER,1980 i L
~
Depth 02 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature (*C) (mg/1) pH 12/12/79 1440 4.0 19.9 10.0 13.0 8.1 { 1/8/80 2/6/80 1505 1420 3.0 4.0 17.2 15.8 2.5
-1.5 14.2 7.2 8.1 3/4/80 1435 4.0 22.1 1.0 14.0 8.1 4/8/80 1450 3.0 17.9 14.5 11.0 8.1 3
5/9/80 1530 4.0 17.3 16.6 11.0 8.4 I 6/6/80 1405 2.0 21.3 23.4 9.0 7.9 7/8/80 1525 3.0 25.6 24.3 7.1 7.8 f 8/5/80 1653 3.0 27.0 29.8 6.9 7.5 9/3/80 1403 4.0 26.7 28.7 7.0 7.6 10/7/80 1350 3.0 29.0 17.3 8.5 8.0 11/6/80 1245 2.0 28.3 10.3 9.8 7.6
- Ilydrolab malfunctioning.
l I l I 1 1 1 I ! 1 i l I .I l I . l _ - l
s_ _ _C-32 s L TABLE C-27 EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 12, WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER,'1979 THROUGIl NOVEMBER, 1980-Depth . 02 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/oo) -Temperature (*C) . (mg/1) pH { 12/12/79. 1535 3.5- 18.5 7.5 12.0' 8.1-(f '1/8/80 1430 2.0 19.2 2.5 15.0 7.2 2/6/80. 1440 3.5 11.8 -0.5 12.4 7.3 3/4/80 1530- 3.5 20.6 2.0 13.8' 8.0 4/9/80.. 1245. 3.0 16.5 12.5 9.8 7.7 5/9/80 1620 - 3. 5 - 15.2 16.5 11.2 8.6 6/6/80 1450 3.0 19.1 22.9 8.6 7.7 7/8/80 1615 3.0 22.8 24.7 7.0 7.8 ( 8/5/80 1736 3.0 23.9 30.1 7.6 7.5 9/3/80 1511 3.5 24.8 27.4 6.2 7.5 (- 10/7/80 1435 3.0 26.0 17.1 8.9 8.0 11/6/80 1400 2.5 26.2 10.4 8.2 7.2 [ (' [L [ (: ( t 4 ir
L' C-33 E TABLE C-28. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 13, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 TIIROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 [- Deptb 02 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature (*C) (mg/1) pH { 12/12/79 1555 3.0 16.5 8.0 12.0 8.0 1/8/80 1605 3.0 11.8 3.0 12.6 7.0 2/6/80 1510 3.0 18.5 1.0 15.4 7.9
~
3/4/80 1545 3.0 19.2 1.0 13.8 8.1 4/9/80 1310 3.0 1.7 12.5 8.0 7.2 5/9/80 1655 3.0 10.4 16.5 9.9 8.2 6/6/80 1515 3.0 17.6 24.5 8.4 7.6 7/8/80 1640 4.0 18.1 24.7 7.0 7.7 ( 8/5/80 1810 4.0 19.1 30.2 7.1 7.3 9/3/80 1537 3.0 20.2 28.8 8.0 7.8
~
10/7/80 1500 4.0 27.2 18.0 7.7 7.9 11/6/80 1440 3.0 21.6 10.7 8.9 7.5 W [ [ W [
L C-34 [ TABLE C-29. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 14, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 TIIROUGli NOVEFmER,1980 Depth 0 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature (* C ) (mg 1) pH 12/12/79 1612 3.0 15.2 7.0 12.2 8.2 1/8/80 { 2/6/80 1630 1515 3.0 3.0 19.2 15.8 3.5 1.0 13.0 15.4 7.2 8.0 3/4/80 1602 3.0 21.3 1.0 13.6 8.1 4/8/80 1545 3.0 13.2 14.0 10.2 7.9 - 5/9/80 1720 3.0 15.8 16.0 9.2 8.4 - 6/6/63 1535 3.0 17.6 22.5 8.1 7.7 7/8/80 1700 2.0 20.4 24.0 6.5 7.5 [ 8/5/80 9/3/80 1834 3.0 3.0 21.4 22.3 28.8 27.7 6.8 6.2 7.5 1612 7.5 ~ 10/7/80 1530 3.0 25.8 17.2 7.7 7.8 11/6/80 1500 3.0 25.4 9.5 8.5 7.5 I I I I I I I I
L r L C-35 I L L TABLE C-30. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 15, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM r DECEMBER, 1979 TilROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 f Depth 0 Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/oo) Temperature ( C) (rig 1) pH 12/13/79 1430 3.5 13.8 8.3 11.4 8.0 1/9/80 0750 2.0 19.2 0.5
- 7.4 2/6/80 1600 3.5 20.6 0.0 15.0 8.2 3/4/80 1700 3.5 25.6 1.0 13.4 8.3 4/8/80 1632 3.0 14.5 13.5 9.2 8.2 5/10/80 0915 1.5 13.7 14.5 9.7 7.6 6/5/80 1520 3.0 20.7 21.8 8.0 7.7 7/7/80 1710 2.0 18.5 24.5 6.6 7.5
! 8/4/80 1620 3.5 17.6 28.7 7.3 7.4 9/2/80 1645 3.5 19.3 28.1 6.2 7.7 l 10/6/80 1545 3.0 23.3 17.5 8.7 7.9 11/5/80 1510 3.0 22.3 10.2 9.1 7.2 4
- Not taken.
!I l lI lI lI
L'[ g . c-36 [; [i TABLE C-31. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 16, WATER QUALITY DATA' FROM DECEMBER,-1979 THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 Depth 02' Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature (*C) (mg/1) 'pH- {--
'12/12/79- 1750' '4.5 13.1- 7.9 11.5 8.1 1/9/80 0710 3.0 15.2 1.0 ~13.5 7.6
{ 2/5/80 1710 -4.5 13.8 -0.2 13.0 7.9
'3/3/80 .1615 4.5 17.2 -0.5 13.4 7.6
{- 4/7/80 3.0 11.8 1815 13.0 11.0 8.2 5/10/80- 0845 4.5- 6.1 14.7 9.4 7.6 6/5/80 '1620 3.0 13.7- 22.7 8.1 7.5 7/8/80 0800- 3.0 15.9 22.6' 5.0 7.5 (- 8/5/80 1920 4.0 17. 8 '28.6 5.5 7.0 9/3/80 1647' 4.5 20.2 27.6 . 7. 0 . 7.7 10/7/80 1600 3.0 20.8 16.8 9.3 8.1 {._ 11/6/80 1535 3.0 19.8 9.7 9.2 7.7 [- c . [ amor W m E M s
hi -I 4 C-37 [' [- TABLE c-32. EXPOSURE PANEL STATION 17, WATER QUALITY DATA FROM DECEMBER, 1979 TilROUGH NOVEMBER,- 1980 Depth 02 -- { Date Time in Feet Salinity (o/co) Temperature (*C) (mg/1) pH 12/12/79 -1710 1.5 24.9 8.0 11.0 8.2 [L 1/7/80 -1600~ 2.0 20.6 1.0- 14.4 -8.1 2/5/80- 1415 1.5 19.9 -0.1 12.8 7.6
-3/3/80 1630 1.5 18.6 -1.0 11.2- 7.4
{- 4/7/80 1730 1.0 24.2 12.5 12.0 8.3 5/8/80 1815 1.5 21.8 14.3 8.7 8.4' 6/5/80 1550 2.0 25.0 24.1 11.9 7.7 7/7/80 1900 2.0 28.6 23.3 6.4 7.7 8/4/80 '1800 '2.0 29.6 29.0 7.8 7.7 ' 9/3/80 1740 1.5 30.1 27.4 8.0 [ 10/7/80- 1630 2.0 23.0 15.6 11.7 8.3 11/6/801 1610 1.0 29.5 9.9 9.9 7.9 nnt [ [- [- [ [ 1
C-38 TABLE C-33. MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF WATER QUALITY VALUES OBSERVED DURING EACll MONTH AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS IN BARNECAT BAY, NEW JERSEY, FROM DECEMEER, 1979 THROUGH NOVE 2ER, 1980 (N=20 except where noted) Standard Parameter Date Maximum Minimum Mean I Deviation Dec 1979 13.5 5.7 9.0 2.27 Jan 1980 3.5 0.5 2.1 0.87 Feb 1.5 -1.5 -0.1 0.77 Mar 2.0 -1.0 0.6 0.70 Apr 14.5 10.0 13.0 1.11
' Temperature May 17.4 12.1 15.5 1.16
('C) Jun 24.5 17.9 22.2 1.39 Jul 25.5 20.3 23.7 1.33 Aug 31.5 26.5 29.7 1.07 Sep 31.3 24.0 28.2 1.92 Oct 23.0 14.8 18.0 2.20 Nov 14.1 8.8 10.8 1.64 . Dec 1979 24.9 13.1 18.1 3.25 Jan 1980* 22.0 11.8 18.6 2.69 Feb 25.6 4.1 16.3 5.19 Mar 28.5 17.2 22.0 2.82 l Apr 25.0 1.7 15.8 4.71 Salinity (o/oo) May 24.4 6.1 16.7 3.90 ; Jun 29.1 13.3 20.2 3.56 i' Jul 29.8 15.6 23.3 3.85 Aug 30.0 17.6 25.0 3.90 Sep 30.9 19.3 25.7 3.58 Oct 31.9 20.8 27.7 2.72 g Nov 31.3 19.8 27.0 2.87 ll Dec 1979 8.5 7.9 8.1 0.14 Jan 1980 8.3 7.0 7.4 0.33 Feb S.2 6.7 7.7 0.44 Mar 8.5 7.4 8.0 0.24 Apr 8.3 7.2 7.8 0.28 pH May 8.6 7.5 8.2 0.30 Jun 7.9 7.5 7.6 0.10 Jul 7.8 6.5 7.5 0.28 Aug 7.7 7.0 7.4 0.20 Sep 8.0 6.9 7.5 0.30 Oct 8.3 5.8 7.8 0.30 Nov 7.9 7.1 7.4 0.2 Dec 1979 13.0 9.8 11.3 0.81 Jan 1980* 13.2 10.9 11.7 0.68 ! Feb** 13.7 10.7 12.4 1.12 Mar 12.5 9.8 11.7 0.73 Apr 10.3 7.3 9.0 0.74 Dissolved Oxygen May 10.2 7.3 8.9 0.7A I (mg/1) Jun 11.9 6.8 8.1 1.05 Jul 8.2 5.0 6.2 0.83 Aug 9.6 5.5 6.9 1.18 Sep 10.6 3.8 6.2 1.53 Oct 11.7 5.8 7.7 1.27 I
- N=19 Nov 9.9 7.4 8.5 0.64
** N=14 I
ll
7_ L I L C-39 TABLE C-34. REPORTED ICE COVER (INCHES) AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BAY DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER, 1979 THROUGH NOVDIBER, 1980. I February March Station 1 Pancake Ice No Ice Station 2 2 Inches 1/4 Inch i Station 3 2 Inches 2 Inches Station 4 No Ice No Ice Station 4A 1 Inch, Slush 1 Inch Station 5 5 Inche. 2 Inches Station 6 5 Inches 2 Inches Station 7 3 Inches 1 Inch Station 8 No Ice No Ice Station 9 No Ice No Ice Station 10
- i 1 Inch Station 10A 1 Inch 1/4 Inch Station 10B 1 Inch
- Station 11 4 Inches 1/4 Inch Station 12 6 Inches 1/4 Inch Station 13 6 Inches 1 Inch Station 14 6 Inches 2 Inches Station 15 1 Inch No Ice Station 16 4 Inches 1 Inch Station 17 7 Inches 3 Inches I
*Not recorded.
I I I I ;
C-40 1 TABLE C-35. OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION: PLANT D0'JN TIMES SINCE JUNE, 1975 'I 1975 August 28 - 31 September 1 - 2, 24 - 30 ~ October 1 - 3, 5 ) November 25 - 30 December 1, 20, 28 - 31 1976 January 1 - 31 , February 1 - 29 July 28 - 30 1977 April 23 - 30 I ~ May 1 - 31 June 1 - 30 I July 1 - 31 Augus t 1 - 4 October 21 - 23 November 15 4 j December 4 1978 September 16 - 30 October 1 - 31 November 1 - 30 December 1 - 8, 14 - 18 1979 January 16 - 19 , February 6, 7 March 27 - 31 April 1 - 7 May 3 - 31
- September 18 November 23 - 25
- I
- 1980 January 6 - mid-July I l
4 i
l l C-41 l within the temperature ranges at which T. navalic and Bankia gouldi spawn l and settle (Turner , 19 73) . The months of September and October were, on the average, warmer in 1980 than in 1979. Temperatures of 13'c or higher 9ere recorded at all stations in October, 1980, but only Stations 5, 7, l and 8 had temperatures above 13*C in November,1980. g The average annual temperature at each station is plotted by years from 1976 through 1980 in Figure C-2. The number of observations is 12 for 1976,1978 and 1979, and 11 for 1980. Data collection in 1977 was hindered by ice at several stations during January, February, and March (Richards, et al., 1978), so that the number of observations at each station varied from 8 at Station 12 to 9 at Stations 2, 3, 4, 4A, 14, 16, and 17; 10 at Stations 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15; 11 at Stations 8 and 11; and 12 at Stations 5 and 7 (Stations 10A and 10B were not sampled until 1978). For this reason, annual averages in 1977 are not comparable to those of other years. It is apparent from Figure C-2 that for 1976, 1978, and 1979, the stations closest to the discharge from OCGS (Stations 5, 6, 7, and 8) had average temperatures distinctly higher than those at other stations. In 1980, there was no average elevation of temperatures at these stations: the OCGS was shut down for an extended period, including the coldest winter months of January, February, and March (Table C-35). However, higher temperatures were recorded at Stations 5, 6, 7, and 8 than at other stations in September, October, and November, 1980 (Tables C-10 through C-12; Tables C-18 through C-21. From the plots of the difference in monthly temperature values between Station 8 and Stations 2, 9,12,15, and 17 (Figures C-3 through C-7; Table C-36), it can be seen that temperatures at Station 8 were elevated between 75 percent and 92 percent of the time, and were higher by 3' to 5.9'c from 44 percent to 50 percent of the time. When stations were grouped into regions, and the average annual temperature for each region plotted (Figure C-8), Region 1, which includes Stations 5, 6, 7, and 8, is seen to have higher annual mean temperatures than any of the other four regions, except in 1977. Reasons for this are as stated above, including lack of data points and the OCCS outage. Values I 1
[. C-42 [{
. TABLE C-36. TEMPERATURES RECORDED AT STATION 8 COMPARED TO FIVE OTHER EXPOSURE
. PANEL STATIONS IN VARIOUS REGIONS OF BARNEGAT BAY.
[ h Station-8 Compared To: Station 2 Station 9 Station 12 Station 16 Station 17 Number of Observations Lower Than 4 12 { Equal To 5 6 7 0 10 3 5 2 0.1.To 0.9.*C Higher 8 3 2 3 5 1.0 To 1.9 *C Higher 5 8 8 6 6 2.0 To 2.9 *C Higher 5 6 5 7 7 3.0 To 3.9 *C. Higher 8. 13 14 7 7
-4.0 To 4.9 *C Higher 14 12 5 12 13
( 5.0 To 5.9 *C Higher 9 5 9 10 7 6.0 To 6.9 *C Higher 4 2 3 4 4 7.0 To 8.5 *C High;r 4 0 ( 0 2 3
>8.5 *C Higher 0 0 0 0 1 Missing Pairs 3 2 4 3 3 Summary i'ut of - Total Observations 62 63 6,1 62 62 dievated - Times 57 49 46 51 53 Or - % 92 78 75 82 85
[ Of These - Elevated Observations 57
~
49 46 51 53
- Were Between 3.0 To 5.9 *C 31 - 50 28 29 27 Or - % of Total Observations 50 48 46 47 44
[ [ [ E
lllllll P O tw~ t7 1 i6 1 l51 I4 m 1 t31 t2 1 i1 1 l0 1 l0 1 I0 1 0 n l9 l8 8 9 1 I7 i6 i5 n l4 l4 i3 l2 I1 n 11 16 15 7 1 1 . 11 4 Y 13 A 12 1 B n 11 10 1 1 1 T AD i0 GN EA 1 t0 9 1 7 N i9 R ; n l8 l7 i6 9 1 A0 B8 9 f5 N1 l4 I l4 N NI 7 f i3 O I 1 l2 I1 T1 A T ; S9 n 17 1 16 1 L9 E1 7 15 1 N 141 Ad 13 1 P n a n 821 111 10 1 E R8 U7 10 1 8 S9 10 7 O1 i 1 9 P 19 1 X , 18 E6 i 17 7 16 H9 15 C1 A 84 EN n I 14 l3 T l2 A2 I1 1 E i7 RS 1 UI n i6 l5 1 l4 1 T AS RN a3 1 1 EO PI f2 1 MT l1 EA . n 1 l0 TV7 i9 1 7 R7 7 LE9 l8 9 AS1 f7 1 UB f6 NOR N O n i5 l4 l4 AFF E O 2 l3 GR1 i2 AE t1 RBO EMT n i71 VU AN8 l6 1 l5 . 1 i1 4 2 f3 1 - R l2 l1 1 1 C i0 E 1 R t9 6 U i8 7 G I R t7 t6 9 1 F t5 I4 f3 f2 M i1
- - - - - - " - - - ~
0 9, 6 1 6 5 4 3, 2, i 2 1 1 1 1 1 t ' 1 s JW
* [ s 1i l l ll ll l l
lIllll l\l lll l ; mill r nL# ~ r l _ - l r _
' t 0
, 8 9 -r 1 2 / N r O I T A T S _ m _
~
r D 9 N 7 A 9 8 1 m N r O I T A T m S r T A 8 YL m 7
~ 9 H r 1 TN l
O I D m r - l E D R O C E R _ m r 7 S 7 E 9 1 RU _ T A
- R r E P
M E L T m r
- N E
E W T m 6 EB
- 7 r 9 1 E C
N E m R
- E r F F
I 5 7 D m r 9 1 3 C t - - - - - - - - - - - ~ E
- 9 8 7 R
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 U r - ~ G I SENt0 E5go F w l ll ll ll
i1 r r 9b r , l r 0 8 - 9 r 1 9 N O m I T A T S D N l 9 A 7 9 8 1 N O I T A m T S T A Y L M 8 7 I I T 9 N 1 0 f I M D E D R [ O C E M ; R S E 7 R 7 U 9 T M 1 A R E P i D T M N E E l U T M 6 7 E B 9 E 1 C N E M } L
. R E
F F I D 5 M 7 9 1 4 C I E
- - - - - - - - R
- U G
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 I
- F e $ EOEo
, i1 llI I l I lll ifl
r m r
?*
n n 0 8 9 n 1 2 1 N O n I T u A u T s S u D 9 N 7 A 9 W 1 8 N O I T A m T S T A Y m 8 7 9 L H T 1 N O i
\
l m D E D R O C E M R 7 S 7 E 9 R 1 U M T A R E P f l E M N T E E W M ; 6 T E 7 B 9
\
1 E C N E M R E F F I D m 5 7 9 . 1 5
- C m -
7 6 5 - 3 2 1 E R U 0 1 3 G _2 - - I F g5. 8 {u m m
Qll lllll ll \ m
?
m r 0 8 9 - 1 r . 5 1 - N O m I T A T S D e 9 N 7 A 9 1 8 N m O I e T A T S _ T _ r A _ Y 8 L 7 H m 9 T 1 N r f O I I D E m D R e
/( O C
E R m S r 7 7 E R 9 U 1 T A n R
-r E P
I I E
- T N
m r
\ E E
W T E 6 B m 7 9 E e 1 C N E R E F m F I 5 D 7 9
, 1 . - 6 r N -
C
- - - - - - - - - - - E R
8 7 - 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 U
- - - G r I
=5 $?a F m
t_ f1f l\l jlll ll l
l l l1l W W W m ~ 0 8 9 m 1 7 1 N m ) O I T A T S m 9 7 A D N 9 1 8 1 N m O
/ T A
T S I m l T A Y 8 L l 7 i m 9 1 T N O D E m_ D R O C E R m 7 7 S E R 9 U 1 T A R m E P I E T m N E E s W T E m ( 6 7 9 1 B E C N E R E m F F I D 5
' 7 9
m 1 7 C
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E 1 0 9 8 7 6 ' R 5 3 2 ' 0 1 3 U m 1 1
;c ] g ya 2
- - G I
F m a_ l llll1 ll
m _- m -_ _ 22 - 21 - 20 -
,G 19 -
v 0 3 18 - 1 0 l $*17 - ? 3 S l i
$= 16 -
E E IS - O 14 - 13 - 12 - ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , p, ; , I
. 1 2 3 4 5,s1 2 3 4 5,s 1 2 3 4 5,1 1 2 3 4 5, ,1 2 3 4 5, 1 2 3__ 4 5,
~
1975 1976 1977 19I8 1979 1980 FIGURE C-d. AVEitAGE ANNUAL THIPERATURES FOR STATIONS GROUPED INTO REGIONS. (REGION 1 = ST.LTIONS 5, 6, 7. 8; REGION 2 = STATIONS 2, 3, 4, 4A; REGION 3 = STATIONS 1, 16, 17; REGI0il 4 = STATIONS 9,10,10A, 10B, 11; REGION 5 = STATIONS 12, 13, 14, 15)
{ , s
'C-30
=
~ for.1975 are included'in this plot. Since' data were collected only from h ; June through December in that year (Richards et al.,1976),. the values
- are higher.than for subsequent. years. However, Region 1 shows a tempera-ture' elevation similar to that seen in subsequent. years. For some years
{ (e.g.._1978,7 Figure C-8), Region 4 has the second highest mean annual tem-
. perature. This'provides some evidence of the recirculation of the thermal discharge that has been calculated to occur between 4 percent and 22 percent of the time-(Kennish, personal communication). Individual station effects are obscured by averaging, but Stations 11,10B, and 10A in particular do at times receive some of the recirculation discharge.
The results of the analysis of variance of temperatures is shown
-in Table C-37. There is strong statistical evidence of region, season and h _ year main effects, with the season to season variation being most-important, followed by region to region variation, and finally, a small year to ycar
. effect. The two-factor interaction analysis showed no statistical evidence
{_ of variation in region effect across seasons or across years. There is, however, statistical evidence of variation in season effect from year to year. [:. The ANOVA results show that there are significant interactions involved, but do not provide any information about the nature and magnitude of such interactions. The multiple comparison analyses provide quantifi-cation and graphical repeesentation of the nature of these effects. The curves plotted in Figure C-9 allow comparison of regions within each of the four seasons, and seasons within each region. If there is no " region by season" interaction, then season differences should be similar from region to region, and differences between regions should be the
- same irrespective of season. Season differences are based on comparisons between curves, while region differences are based on comparisons within curves. Lack of interaction implies that the curves should be parallel, and'this is clearly seen to be the case. Therefore, when comparing regions, it -is reasonable to compare average effects across seasons and years. The average temperatures (across seasons and years, plotted in Figure C-9) were compared using the Bonferroni t-procedure. Any two averages differin'g by more than 1*C are significantly different at the 5 percent level. Thus, g
4
{ C-51 TABLE C-37. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TEMPERATURES RECORDED AT EXPOSURE PANEL h STATIONS IN BARNEGAT. BAY FROM JANUARY,1976 THROUGH NOVEMBER,1980 Stations are grouped into the following Regions: Region 1: Stas. 5, 6, 7 & 8 (near OCGS); Region 2: Stas. 2, ' 3, 4 & 4A (south): Region 3: { Stas.-1, 16'& 17 (east); Region 4: Stas._9, 10, 10A, 10B & 11 (near north); Region 5: Stas.12,13, 14 & 15 (north) .
.f Months are grouped by year and by season: Winter = Jan, Feb.& Mar; '
h- Spring = Apr, May & Jun; Summer = Jul, Aug & Sep; Autumn = Oct, Nov & Dec. Suas of Mean Significance Source of Variation Squares DF Squares - F of F Main Effects 64296.96 11 5845.18 394.55 0.001 Region 1178.97 292.74 (- 4 19.76 0.001
' Season 57965.57 3 19321.86 1304.22 0.001 Year 397.73 4 99.43 6.71 0.001
[ 2-Way Interactions 1637.32 40 40.93 2.76 0.001
-Region / Season '147.50 12 12.29 0.83 0.620 Region / Year 174.'54 16 10.91 0.74 0.758 Season / Year 1364.59 12 113.72 7.68 0.001 Explained 75719.97 51 1484.70 100.22 0.001
( . Residual 15140.83 ~1022 14.82 Total 90860.79 1073 84.68 ( (- I u _m. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 1 !l 1lllll
)ll'
~
?g 5 a
I o
. i c
e
. l_
. ra
=
=
= ,
0
= 8
= l M O
= HR 4 GF
= U n OS I
i o RE HU
" g e
TL A
= R 5V 7
= 9O 1T
. MD
. ON RO
. FP SE S
. RR AR m EO YC e
RS
, EE VN
, OI L
, 3 D E
M n G "E o AG
- I i RA g ER e VE R AV .
R S AS N E" R O U .S A TSE n . ANS RO EI D PGN MEA _. ER T S n _ LTA OR ANE NI Y O
. S DR AEE R ,_ EPV SUO 2
n ERD O
. o GGE I
i A G n mq . g R e RSA ENR VOE
, ~ AI V TA FA
. OTN
- n.
- T ORG SO I
r e
- LOE PFR m
n g m 9 y,h n r C p m s g,Q u t e E R n d
% a t
y 4 U G I
>,
- i F
. n 1 o O i g
e t 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8
- - - - R 2 2 2 2 2 1 l 1 6 4 2 0 1 1 c3b$5
)
T ,l lll IlllI il )l
[ C-53 [ Region 1 (Stations 5, 6, 7, and 8) is significantly warmer than the other regions, ranging from 1.3*C warmer on the average than Region 4, (near north Stations 9, 10, 10A, 10B, and 11) to 2.7'c warmer on the average than Region 3 (eastern Stations 1, 16, and 17). Region 4 is also significantly { warmer than Region 2 (southern Stations 2, 3, 4, and 4A) and Region 3. ( Seasonal effects are obtained by comparing across curves within columns. The approximate parallelism of the curves indicates that seasonal effects are the same in each region, and seasonal averages, averaged across { regions, can be compared. These values (winter = 2.21*C; spring = 16.23*C; summer = 25.78'C; autumn = 12.l*C), when compared using the Bonferroni t-procedure, show that all seasonal averages are significantly different from one another. Salinity The minimum salinities at which TcPedo navalis will grow and re-produc. have been reported as 5-10 o/ca (Turner, 1973; Richards, 1978), 1 10-14 o/oo for Bankia gouldi (Allen, 1924; Turner, 1973) and 7-10 o/oo for l T. bartschi (lloagland et al. ,1980). During the period December, 1979 through November, 1980, salinities below 10 o/co were recorded only at 3 h stations in February (Stations 5,10,10B; Table. C-3), at Station 13 in April (Table C-5) and at Station 16 in May (Table C-6). Salinities at { all stations were otherwise well within the limits for advlt survival and reproduction. { Stations were grouped into regions, and the average mmual salinity plotted (Figure C-10). Region 2 stations (south Stations 2, 3, 4, and 4A) are seen to have the highest average salinity every year from { 1976 through 1980. The high salinities at Station 1 are obscured because this station was grouped with Station 16, also on the eastern side of the [ bay, but apparently in a different physio-chemical regime than Station 1. Region 5. stations (north Stations 12, 13, 14, and 15), with which Station 16 should perhaps be grouped, consistently have the lowest salinities. . [ [
l v 9g , ' 1 i4 5 1 1 B 0 1 n I 3y93
- 0
;1 A
0 1 8 I 2 ,0 n ' 71 I 1 69
, ,S
, 5N n I 5
SI NT O OA , I 4 IT TS A n i I 3,7 9 9 T= S 4 1 = N I 2 1O I n I 1 NG OE IR
, G E
R; n I 5 (7 1 I4 S6 N1 8 O n I 397 G1 1 I , E RS I 2 N OO TI n I 1 NT IA T DS
, E i 5 P =
U n l 4 O3 R GN O SI 7 NG n i 37 OE 9 IR) 1 T 5 A T; 1 i 2 SA , 44 i 1 R ,1 O
. F4 ,
w i 5 i 4 S E3 I T I21 N ISS 6 LNN AOO
,3
,2 1
i 3.7 n_ I 2 9 SII 1 LAA ATT TT USS N N=
/ =
n i 1 A E 25 GNN i 5, AOO RII EGG n I 4 VEE ARR 5 . 1 37 0 9 1 n 1 2 1 C E R l 1 U G n . I F t 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 3 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 ,1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 >" =hn I
( C-55 Values for 1977 are somewhat higher than for other years; this is probably due to missing data points for the winter months, which tend to have lower salinities. Values for 1980 do not include December, which may account for the' slight elevation in that year's values over 1976, 1978, and 1979. The result of the analysis of variance for salinity is shown in Tabic C-38. All three main effects, that is, region, season, and year, ( are highly significant. The two-factor interaction shows no statistical evidence of differences in region effects across seasons or years, however, ( season by year effects are highly significant. Regional differences can be treated irrespective of season or year, but seasonal differences vary from year to year. The curves generated by the multiple comparison analysis are plotted in Figure C-11. Since the ANOVA indicates no region by season interaction, the curves should be approximately parallel, but in fact, they deviate somewhat from the expected form. Av(rage values of regions across [ seasons are also plotted in Figure C-ll and wer, compared using the Bonferroni t-procedure. Any two averages d.*ffering by more than 1.3 o/oo are statistically different at the 5 percent level of significance. Region 1 (OCGS) has significantly lower average salinities than Region 2 ( (south) and significantly higher average salinities than Region 5 (north). Seasonal effects are obtained by comparing across curves within ( column (Figure C-ll). Since the curves are approximately parallel, seasonal effects appear to be the same at each region, and seasonal ef-fccts averaged across regions can be compared. When these averages { (winter = 16.11 o/oo, spring = 18.23 o/oo, summer = 22.30 o/oo, autumn = 21.38 oho) are compared using the Bonferroni t-procedure, averages which differ by more than 1.1 o/oo are statistically different at the 3 percent 1cvel of significance. Winter salinities are therefore significantly lower than salinities during all other seasons, and spring salinities are significantly lower than summer or autumn salinities. [ [
h { C-56 TABLE C-38. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SALINITIES RECORDED AT EXPOSURE PANEL
' STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BAY FROM JANUARY,1976 THROUGH NOVEMBER,1980.
Stations are grouped into the following regions: Region 1: Stas. ' 5, 6, 7 & 8 (near OCGS); Region 2: Stas. 2, 3, 4, & 4A (south); Region 3: Stas. 1, 16 & 17 (east); Region 4: Stas. 9, 10, 10A, 10B {- & 11 (near-north); Region 5: S tas . 12, 13, 14 & 15 (no rth) . Months are grouped by year and by seasons: Winter = Jan, Feb, & Mar: Spring = Apr, May & Jun; Summer = Jul, Aug, Sep; Autumn = { Oct, Nov:& Dec. (-. Sums of Mean Significance Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F ( Main Effects 13491.38 21 1226.49 58.88 0.001 Region 2821.41 4 705.35 33.86 0.001. Season 3620.60 3 1206.87 57.94 0.001 Year 4851.52 4 1212.88 58.23 0.001 2-Way Interactions 4787.64 40 119.19 5.72 0.001 {.. - Region / Season 190.91 12 15.91 0.76 0.688 Region / Year 215.09 16 13.44 0.64 0.848 ! Season / Year 4284.57 12 357.05 17.14 001 Explained 18042.39 51 353.77 16.98 0.001 { Residual 19496.52 936 20.83 Total 37538.90 987 38.03 [ [ [. (-
c-57 *
~
4 f E 4 * ,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ g
/ m
/
R
/ 9 -
.: G I y8 I
- i I N l O 1 s x ;
i h 6 l M I " i sO i 8 l I ~ ec O I i
$ s-w
%S I
b 50 i E5 s da k i 5E I a8 g I AU "8m 8 d5 s -To "C
\ o w<
h "
\ h5 we
\
t t v
%R
\ \ $ - 4 5
$, N a
( Ss% $ w v o 3 % =
\ e
~
( o % ( # g H
\
s .k
-y x
l l ! I I I I I I I I I I l
$ Z S N N O $ $ C $ 0 'd C U (o0/0) L3TtiTies
L C-58 2" ( The results of the analysis of variance of pH are given in Table C-39. There'is little statistic'ai evidence of differences between { regions. Average values of pH, averaged over stations by regional groupings, and consideied separately for each season in each year, range (- from a low of 7.6 at Region 1' stations in the winter of 1976 to a high
- of 8.1 at' Region 3 stations in the summer of 1978. Most average values fall between 7.7 and 7.9, a range which is not considered biologically-significant for teredinids, and which is not, as concluded above,
( statistically significant. Season and year main effects are highly significant, a9 is the h season by year two-factor interaction. This seasonal variation was not detected in previous analyses (Richards et al., 1979, 1980) probably because months were pooled across all years. The present multiple com- { parison analysis indicates that pH is generally higher in the summer and lower in the autumn and winter. However, the range of values recorded is not considered biologically significant. Dissolved Oxygen The results of the analysis of variance of dissolved oxygen are given in Table C-40. All three main effects are significant, with {: season to season variation being most important. Yssr to year effects are of secondary importance, and regional effects are very small. The season by year two-way interaction is again highly significant, while the region by season interaction is marginal. There is, therefore, strong statistical evidenet that year to year variation in dissolved oxygen depends on seasons, and there is a suggestion that region to ( region variation may also depend on season. Multiple comparison analysis supported these conclusions, ( that is, that there are little to no ragional differences, while sea-sonal effects are rather pr7nounced. This latter conclusion is not E
C-59 TABLE C-39. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF pil RECORDED AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BAY FROM JANUARY,1976 TilROUGli NOVEMBER,1980 Stations are grouped into the following Regions: Region 1: Stas. 5, 6, 7, 8, (near OCGS); Region 2: Stas. 2, 3, 4, 4A (south); kegion 3: Stas. 1,16,- 17 (east); Region 4: Stas. 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 11 (near north); Region 5: Sta9. 12, 13, 14, 15 (north). Months are grouped by year and by season: Winter = Jan, Feb, Mar; Spring = Apr, May, June; Summer = July, Aug, Sep; Autumn = Oct, Nov, Dec. Sums of Mean Significance Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F Main Effects 60.50 11 5.50 25.24 0.001 Region 1.60 4 0.40 1.84 0.119 season 15.99 3 5.33 24.47 0.001 Year 44.09 4 11.02 50.60 0.001 2-Way Interactions 56.09 40 1.40 6.44 0.001 Region / Season 2.76 12 0.23 1.06 0.395 Region / Year 4.34 16 0.27 1.24 0.228 Season / Year 49.51 12 4.13 18.94 0.001 Explained 117.74 51 2.31 10.60 0.001 Residual 203.94 936 0.22 Total 321.68 987 0.33
1 [ C-60 F I TABLE C-40L ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS RECORDED AT EXPOSURE PANEL STATIONS IN BARNEGAT BAY FROM JANUARY, 1976 TilROUGH NOVEMBER, 1980 Stations are grouped into the following Regions: Region 1: I Stas. 5, 6, 7, 8 (near 0 CGS); Region 2: Stas. 2, 3, 4, 4 A (south); Region 3: Stas. 1,16,17 (east); Region 4: Stas. 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 11 (near north); Region 5; Stas. 12, 13, 14, 15 (north). I Months are grouped by year and by season: Winter = Jan, Feb, Mar; Spring = Apr, May, June; Summer = July, Aug, Sep; Autumn = Oct, Nov, Dec. I Sums of Mean Significance Source of Variation Squares DF Squares F of F Main Effects 4663.27 11 423.93 197.67 0.001 l Region 61.26 4 15.32 7.14 0.001 Season 3554.47 3 1184.82 552.46 0.001 Year 414.74 4 103.68 48.35 0.001 2-Way Interactions 370.33 40 9.26 4.32 0.001 Region /Ser. son 40.61 12 3.38 1.58 0.092 Region / Year 30.15 16 1.88 0.88 0.594 Season / Year 298.90 12 24.91 11.61 0.001 I Explained 5710.55 51 111.97 52.21 0.001 Residual 2007.39 936 2.14 Total 7717.94 987 7.82 I I I I I
[ < C-61 L surprising, given the inverse relationship between temperature and ( dissolved oxygen, and the large seasonal variation in temperature at the Barnegat Bay panel stations. Some of the year to year variation may be explained by missing data points, whether because of malfunction- { ing equipment or severe weather conditions in the winter, thus affecting seasonal averages from year to year. [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r L [ J
I l C-62 { Literature Cited I A11ca, M.S. 1924. Toxicity of certMn compounds on marine wood boring I organisms together with some physiological considerations. In: W.C. Atwood, et al. , Marine Structures, Their Deteriora-I tion and Preservation, pp 181-196, National Research Council Washington, DC. Hoagland, K.E., L. Crockett, and R. Turner. 1980. Ecological Studies of Wood-Boring Bivalves in the Vicinity of the Oyster Creek I Nuclear Generating Station. NUReg/CR-1517. 65 pp. Miller, R.G., Jr. 1966. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. McGraw-Hill Co., Inc. Nic, N.H., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner and D. H. Bent. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw-I Hill Co., Inc. 2nd Edition. Richards, B.R., A. E. Rehm, C. I. Belmore, and R. E. Hiliaan. 1976. I Woodborer Study Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station. Annual Report for the Period June 1, 1975 to May 31, 1976, to Jersey Centcal Power & Light Company, Report No. 14729.
. 1978.
Woodborer Study Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station. Annual Report for the Period June 1, 1976, to I November 30, 1977, to Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Report No. 14819.
, C. I. Belmore, and R. E. Hillman. 1979. Woodborer Study Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station. Annual Report for the Period December 1, 1977, to November 30, 1978, to Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Report No. 14893.
. and N. J. Maciolck. 1980.
Woodborer Study Associated w;th the Oyster Creek Generating I Station. Annual Report for the Period December 1, 1978, to November 30, 1979, to Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Report No. 14968. Turner, R.D. 1973. Report on marine borers (Teredinidae) in Oyster Creek, Warctown, New Jersey. Museum of Compar. Zool., Harvard I University, Cambridge, Maas. 30 pp. First Report, April 3, 1973. I I I
- -}}